| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We can't just skip initializing such subplans, because the referencing CTE
node will expect to find the subplan available when it initializes. That
in turn means that ExecInitModifyTable must allow the case (which actually
it needed to do anyway, since there's no guarantee that ModifyTable is
exactly at the top of the CTE plan tree). So move the complaint about not
being allowed in EvalPlanQual mode to execution instead of initialization.
Testing turned up yet another problem, which is that we'd try to
re-initialize the result relation's index list, leading to leaks and
dangling pointers.
Per report from Phil Sorber. Back-patch to 9.1 where data-modifying CTEs
were introduced.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
We need ExecutorEnd to run the ModifyTable nodes to completion in
reverse order of initialization, not forward order. Easily done
by constructing the list back-to-front.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This patch implements data-modifying WITH queries according to the
semantics that the updates all happen with the same command counter value,
and in an unspecified order. Therefore one WITH clause can't see the
effects of another, nor can the outer query see the effects other than
through the RETURNING values. And attempts to do conflicting updates will
have unpredictable results. We'll need to document all that.
This commit just fixes the code; documentation updates are waiting on
author.
Marko Tiikkaja and Hitoshi Harada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
ExecUpdate checked for whether ExecBRUpdateTriggers had returned a new
tuple value by seeing if the returned tuple was pointer-equal to the old
one. But the "old one" was in estate->es_junkFilter's result slot, which
would be scribbled on if we had done an EvalPlanQual update in response to
a concurrent update of the target tuple; therefore we were comparing a
dangling pointer to a live one. Given the right set of circumstances we
could get a false match, resulting in not forcing the tuple to be stored in
the slot we thought it was stored in. In the case reported by Maxim Boguk
in bug #5798, this led to "cannot extract system attribute from virtual
tuple" failures when trying to do "RETURNING ctid". I believe there is a
very-low-probability chance of more serious errors, such as generating
incorrect index entries based on the original rather than the
trigger-modified version of the row.
In HEAD, change all of ExecBRInsertTriggers, ExecIRInsertTriggers,
ExecBRUpdateTriggers, and ExecIRUpdateTriggers so that they continue to
have similar APIs. In the back branches I just changed
ExecBRUpdateTriggers, since there is no bug in the ExecBRInsertTriggers
case.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan,
because it might have a column set different from other targets. This
means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be
at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual
rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible
misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row,
as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure
so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan.
I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column
numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived
during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent
massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider
undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and
didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This patch adds the SQL-standard concept of an INSTEAD OF trigger, which
is fired instead of performing a physical insert/update/delete. The
trigger function is passed the entire old and/or new rows of the view,
and must figure out what to do to the underlying tables to implement
the update. So this feature can be used to implement updatable views
using trigger programming style rather than rule hacking.
In passing, this patch corrects the names of some columns in the
information_schema.triggers view. It seems the SQL committee renamed
them somewhere between SQL:99 and SQL:2003.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Bernd Helmle; some additional hacking by me.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
transaction snapshots, i.e. a snapshot registered at the beginning of
a transaction. Change variable naming and comments to reflect this reality
in preparation for a future, truly serializable mode, e.g.
Serializable Snapshot Isolation (SSI).
For the moment transaction snapshots are still used to implement
SERIALIZABLE, but hopefully not for too much longer. Patch by Kevin
Grittner and Dan Ports with review and some minor wording changes by me.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
ExecModifyTable(). This avoids memory leakage when trigger functions leave
junk behind in that context (as they more or less must). Problem and solution
identified by Dean Rasheed.
I'm a bit concerned about the longevity of this solution --- once a plan can
have multiple ModifyTable nodes, we are very possibly going to have to do
something different. But it should hold up for 9.0.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
VACUUM FULL INPLACE), along with a boatload of subsidiary code and complexity.
Per discussion, the use case for this method of vacuuming is no longer large
enough to justify maintaining it; not to mention that we don't wish to invest
the work that would be needed to make it play nicely with Hot Standby.
Aside from the code directly related to old-style VACUUM FULL, this commit
removes support for certain WAL record types that could only be generated
within VACUUM FULL, redirect-pointer removal in heap_page_prune, and
nontransactional generation of cache invalidation sinval messages (the last
being the sticking point for Hot Standby).
We still have to retain all code that copes with finding HEAP_MOVED_OFF and
HEAP_MOVED_IN flag bits on existing tuples. This can't be removed as long
as we want to support in-place update from pre-9.0 databases.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We need to free the OID list returned by ExecInsertIndexTuples to avoid
a query-lifespan memory leak. When many rows require rechecking, this
can be a significant leak --- it's even more than the space used for the
queued trigger events.
Dean Rasheed
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
checked to determine whether the trigger should be fired.
For BEFORE triggers this is mostly a matter of spec compliance; but for AFTER
triggers it can provide a noticeable performance improvement, since queuing of
a deferred trigger event and re-fetching of the row(s) at end of statement can
be short-circuited if the trigger does not need to be fired.
Takahiro Itagaki, reviewed by KaiGai Kohei.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
|
|
|
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
|
