| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: update all files in master, backpatch legal files through 9.4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, if the startup pruning logic proved that all child nodes
of an Append or MergeAppend could be pruned, we still kept one, just
to keep EXPLAIN from failing. The previous commit removed the
ruleutils.c limitation that required this kluge, so drop it. That
results in less-confusing EXPLAIN output, as per a complaint from
Yuzuko Hosoya.
David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/001001d4f44b$2a2cca50$7e865ef0$@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In nodeAppend.c and nodeMergeAppend.c there were some foreach loops which
looped over the list of subplans and only performed any work if the
subplan index was found in a Bitmapset. With the old linked list
implementation of List, this form made sense as accessing the Nth list
element was O(N). However, thanks to 1cff1b95a we now have array-based
lists, so accessing the Nth element has become O(1).
Here we make the most of the O(1) lookups and just loop over the set
members of the Bitmapset with bms_next_member(). This performs slightly
better when a small number of the list items are in the Bitmapset. Micro
benchmarks show that when the Bitmapset contains all or most of the list
items then the new code is ever so slightly slower. In practice, the cost
is so small that it's drowned out by various other things such as locking
the relations belonging to each subplan, etc.
The primary goal here is to leave better code examples around which benefit
better from the new list implementation.
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f8ZcsLVgkF4wOfRyMYTcPgLFiUAOedFC+U2vK_aFZk-BA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Upcoming work intends to allow pluggable ways to introduce new ways of
storing table data. Accessing those table access methods from the
executor requires TupleTableSlots to be carry tuples in the native
format of such storage methods; otherwise there'll be a significant
conversion overhead.
Different access methods will require different data to store tuples
efficiently (just like virtual, minimal, heap already require fields
in TupleTableSlot). To allow that without requiring additional pointer
indirections, we want to have different structs (embedding
TupleTableSlot) for different types of slots. Thus different types of
slots are needed, which requires adapting creators of slots.
The slot that most efficiently can represent a type of tuple in an
executor node will often depend on the type of slot a child node
uses. Therefore we need to track the type of slot is returned by
nodes, so parent slots can create slots based on that.
Relatedly, JIT compilation of tuple deforming needs to know which type
of slot a certain expression refers to, so it can create an
appropriate deforming function for the type of tuple in the slot.
But not all nodes will only return one type of slot, e.g. an append
node will potentially return different types of slots for each of its
subplans.
Therefore add function that allows to query the type of a node's
result slot, and whether it'll always be the same type (whether it's
fixed). This can be queried using ExecGetResultSlotOps().
The scan, result, inner, outer type of slots are automatically
inferred from ExecInitScanTupleSlot(), ExecInitResultSlot(),
left/right subtrees respectively. If that's not correct for a node,
that can be overwritten using new fields in PlanState.
This commit does not introduce the actually abstracted implementation
of different kind of TupleTableSlots, that will be left for a followup
commit. The different types of slots introduced will, for now, still
use the same backing implementation.
While this already partially invalidates the big comment in
tuptable.h, it seems to make more sense to update it later, when the
different TupleTableSlot implementations actually exist.
Author: Ashutosh Bapat and Andres Freund, with changes by Amit Khandekar
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In a lot of nodes the return slot is not required. That can either be
because the node doesn't do any projection (say an Append node), or
because the node does perform projections but the projection is
optimized away because the projection would yield an identical row.
Slots aren't that small, especially for wide rows, so it's worthwhile
to avoid creating them. It's not possible to just skip creating the
slot - it's currently used to determine the tuple descriptor returned
by ExecGetResultType(). So separate the determination of the result
type from the slot creation. The work previously done internally
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() can now also be done separately with
ExecInitResultTypeTL() and ExecInitResultSlot(). That way nodes that
aren't guaranteed to need a result slot, can use
ExecInitResultTypeTL() to determine the result type of the node, and
ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo() (via
ExecConditionalAssignProjectionInfo()) determines that a result slot
is needed, it is created with ExecInitResultSlot().
Besides the advantage of avoiding to create slots that then are
unused, this is necessary preparation for later patches around tuple
table slot abstraction. In particular separating the return descriptor
and slot is a prerequisite to allow JITing of tuple deforming with
knowledge of the underlying tuple format, and to avoid unnecessarily
creating JITed tuple deforming for virtual slots.
This commit removes a redundant argument from
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL(). While this commit touches a lot of the
relevant lines anyway, it'd normally still not worthwhile to cause
breakage, except that aforementioned later commits will touch *all*
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() callers anyway (but fits worse
thematically).
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We already have appropriate locks on every relation listed in the
query's rangetable before we reach the executor. Take the next step
in exploiting that knowledge by removing code that worries about
taking locks on non-leaf result relations in a partitioned table.
In particular, get rid of ExecLockNonLeafAppendTables and a stanza in
InitPlan that asserts we already have locks on certain such tables.
In passing, clean up some now-obsolete comments in InitPlan.
Amit Langote, reviewed by David Rowley and Jesper Pedersen,
and whacked around a bit more by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Create an array estate->es_relations[] paralleling the es_range_table,
and store references to Relations (relcache entries) there, so that any
given RT entry is opened and closed just once per executor run. Scan
nodes typically still call ExecOpenScanRelation, but ExecCloseScanRelation
is no more; relation closing is now done centrally in ExecEndPlan.
This is slightly more complex than one would expect because of the
interactions with relcache references held in ResultRelInfo nodes.
The general convention is now that ResultRelInfo->ri_RelationDesc does
not represent a separate relcache reference and so does not need to be
explicitly closed; but there is an exception for ResultRelInfos in the
es_trig_target_relations list, which are manufactured by
ExecGetTriggerResultRel and have to be cleaned up by
ExecCleanUpTriggerState. (That much was true all along, but these
ResultRelInfos are now more different from others than they used to be.)
To allow the partition pruning logic to make use of es_relations[] rather
than having its own relcache references, adjust PartitionedRelPruneInfo
to store an RT index rather than a relation OID.
Amit Langote, reviewed by David Rowley and Jesper Pedersen,
some mods by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The previous coding here supposed that if run-time partitioning applied to
a particular Append/MergeAppend plan, then all child plans of that node
must be members of a single partitioning hierarchy. This is totally wrong,
since an Append could be formed from a UNION ALL: we could have multiple
hierarchies sharing the same Append, or child plans that aren't part of any
hierarchy.
To fix, restructure the related plan-time and execution-time data
structures so that we can have a separate list or array for each
partitioning hierarchy. Also track subplans that are not part of any
hierarchy, and make sure they don't get pruned.
Per reports from Phil Florent and others. Back-patch to v11, since
the bug originated there.
David Rowley, with a lot of cosmetic adjustments by me; thanks also
to Amit Langote for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/HE1PR03MB17068BB27404C90B5B788BCABA7B0@HE1PR03MB1706.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now that the bms_add_range boundary protections are gone, some
alternative ones are needed in a few places.
Author: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3437ccf8-a144-55ff-1e2f-fc16b437823b@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This comment was copy-pasted from nodeAppend.c to nodeMergeAppend.c, but
while committing 5220bb7533, I modified wrong copy of it.
Spotted by David Rowley
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This expands the support for the run-time partition pruning which was added
for Append in 499be013de to also allow unneeded subnodes of a MergeAppend
to be removed.
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKJS1f_F_V8D7Wu-HVdnH7zCUxhoGK8XhLLtd%3DCu85qDZzXrgg%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The previous coding saved pointers into the partitioned table's relcache
entry, but then closed the relcache entry, causing those pointers to
nominally become dangling. Actual trouble would be seen in the field
only if a relcache flush occurred mid-query, but that's hardly out of
the question.
While we could fix this by copying all the data in question at query
start, it seems better to just hold the relcache entry open for the
whole query.
While at it, improve the handling of support-function lookups: do that
once per query not once per pruning test. There's still something to be
desired here, in that we fail to exploit the possibility of caching data
across queries in the fn_extra fields of the relcache's FmgrInfo structs,
which could happen if we just used those structs in-place rather than
copying them. However, combining that with the possibility of per-query
lookups of cross-type comparison functions seems to require changes in the
APIs of a lot of the pruning support functions, so it's too invasive to
consider as part of this patch. A win would ensue only for complex
partition key data types (e.g. arrays), so it may not be worth the
trouble.
David Rowley and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17850.1528755844@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The initial coding of the run-time-pruning feature only coped with cases
where the partition key(s) are compared to Params. That is a bit silly;
we can allow it to work with any non-Var-containing stable expression, as
long as we take special care with expressions containing PARAM_EXEC Params.
The code is hardly any longer this way, and it's considerably clearer
(IMO at least). Per gripe from Pavel Stehule.
David Rowley, whacked around a bit by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFj8pRBjrufA3ocDm8o4LPGNye9Y+pm1b9kCwode4X04CULG3g@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In 499be013de support for pruning unneeded Append subnodes was added.
The logic in that commit was not correctly checking if the next subplan
was in fact a valid subplan. This could cause parallel workers processes
to be given a subplan to work on which didn't require any work.
Per code review following an otherwise unexplained regression failure in
buildfarm member Pademelon. (We haven't been able to reproduce the
failure, so this is a bit of a blind fix in terms of whether it'll
actually fix it; but it is a clear bug nonetheless).
In passing, also add a comment to explain what first_partial_plan means.
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f_E5r05hHUVG3UmCQJ49DGKKHtN=SHybD44LdzBn+CJng@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Parallel-aware plan nodes must be prepared to run without parallelism
if it's not possible at execution time for whatever reason. Commit
ab72716778128fb63d54ac256adf7fe6820a1185, which introduced Parallel
Append, overlooked this.
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi reported this problem, and I included his test
case in this patch. The code changes are by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6=WqkUudLg1GLZZ7fc5ScWC1+Y9qD=pAHeqy32WoeJQvw@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The reason for doing so is that it will allow expression evaluation to
optimize based on the underlying tupledesc. In particular it will
allow to JIT tuple deforming together with the expression itself.
For that expression initialization needs to be moved after the
relevant slots are initialized - mostly unproblematic, except in the
case of nodeWorktablescan.c.
After doing so there's no need for ExecAssignResultType() and
ExecAssignResultTypeFromTL() anymore, as all former callers have been
converted to create a slot with a fixed descriptor.
When creating a slot with a fixed descriptor, tts_values/isnull can be
allocated together with the main slot, reducing allocation overhead
and increasing cache density a bit.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171206093717.vqdxe5icqttpxs3p@alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When the previously-chosen plan was non-partial, all pa_finished
flags for partial plans are now set, and pa_next_plan has not yet
been set to INVALID_SUBPLAN_INDEX, the previous code could go into
an infinite loop.
Report by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi. Patch by Amit Khandekar and me.
Review by Kyotaro Horiguchi.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9cf43z78qY=U=H0HvOEN341qfRO-vLpnKPSviHeWgJQ5w@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
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reported by Tom Lane and the buildfarm.
Amul Sul and Amit Khandekar
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/17868.1512519318@sss.pgh.pa.us
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9cJQ4d-XhmZ6BqM9rMM2KDBfpkdgOAb4+psz56uBuMQ_A@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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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 b8d7f053c5c2bf2a7e - 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.us
https://postgr.es/m/b0af9eaa-130c-60d0-9e4e-7a135b1e0c76@dalibo.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In a followup commit ExecProcNode(), and especially the large switch
it contains, will largely be replaced by a function pointer directly
to the correct node. The node functions will then get invoked by a
thin inline function wrapper. To avoid having to include miscadmin.h
in headers - CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() - move the interrupt checks into
the individual executor routines.
While looking through all executor nodes, I noticed a number of
arguably missing interrupt checks, add these too.
Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
| |
perltidy run not included.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch certain files through 9.1
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch certain files through 9.0
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This includes removing tabs after periods in C comments, which was
applied to back branches, so this change should not effect backpatching.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Update all files in head, and files COPYRIGHT and legal.sgml in all back
branches.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Fully update git head, and update back branches in ./COPYRIGHT and
legal.sgml files.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
relation using the general PARAM_EXEC executor parameter mechanism, rather
than the ad-hoc kluge of passing the outer tuple down through ExecReScan.
The previous method was hard to understand and could never be extended to
handle parameters coming from multiple join levels. This patch doesn't
change the set of possible plans nor have any significant performance effect,
but it's necessary infrastructure for future generalization of the concept
of an inner indexscan plan.
ExecReScan's second parameter is now unused, so it's removed.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
They are now handled by a new plan node type called ModifyTable, which is
placed at the top of the plan tree. In itself this change doesn't do much,
except perhaps make the handling of RETURNING lists and inherited UPDATEs a
tad less klugy. But it is necessary preparation for the intended extension of
allowing RETURNING queries inside WITH.
Marko Tiikkaja
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
back-stamped for this.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
any use in the past many years, we'd have made some effort to include
them in all executor node types; but in fact they were only in
nodeAppend.c and nodeIndexscan.c, up until I copied nodeIndexscan.c's
occurrence into the new bitmap node types. Remove some other unused
macros in execdebug.h, too. Some day the whole header probably ought to
go away in favor of better-designed facilities.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
bits indicating which optional capabilities can actually be exercised
at runtime. This will allow Sort and Material nodes, and perhaps later
other nodes, to avoid unnecessary overhead in common cases.
This commit just adds the infrastructure and arranges to pass the correct
flag values down to plan nodes; none of the actual optimizations are here
yet. I'm committing this separately in case anyone wants to measure the
added overhead. (It should be negligible.)
Simon Riggs and Tom Lane
|
