aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAge
* Improve concurrency of foreign key lockingAlvaro Herrera2013-01-23
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This patch introduces two additional lock modes for tuples: "SELECT FOR KEY SHARE" and "SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE". These don't block each other, in contrast with already existing "SELECT FOR SHARE" and "SELECT FOR UPDATE". UPDATE commands that do not modify the values stored in the columns that are part of the key of the tuple now grab a SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE lock on the tuple, allowing them to proceed concurrently with tuple locks of the FOR KEY SHARE variety. Foreign key triggers now use FOR KEY SHARE instead of FOR SHARE; this means the concurrency improvement applies to them, which is the whole point of this patch. The added tuple lock semantics require some rejiggering of the multixact module, so that the locking level that each transaction is holding can be stored alongside its Xid. Also, multixacts now need to persist across server restarts and crashes, because they can now represent not only tuple locks, but also tuple updates. This means we need more careful tracking of lifetime of pg_multixact SLRU files; since they now persist longer, we require more infrastructure to figure out when they can be removed. pg_upgrade also needs to be careful to copy pg_multixact files over from the old server to the new, or at least part of multixact.c state, depending on the versions of the old and new servers. Tuple time qualification rules (HeapTupleSatisfies routines) need to be careful not to consider tuples with the "is multi" infomask bit set as being only locked; they might need to look up MultiXact values (i.e. possibly do pg_multixact I/O) to find out the Xid that updated a tuple, whereas they previously were assured to only use information readily available from the tuple header. This is considered acceptable, because the extra I/O would involve cases that would previously cause some commands to block waiting for concurrent transactions to finish. Another important change is the fact that locking tuples that have previously been updated causes the future versions to be marked as locked, too; this is essential for correctness of foreign key checks. This causes additional WAL-logging, also (there was previously a single WAL record for a locked tuple; now there are as many as updated copies of the tuple there exist.) With all this in place, contention related to tuples being checked by foreign key rules should be much reduced. As a bonus, the old behavior that a subtransaction grabbing a stronger tuple lock than the parent (sub)transaction held on a given tuple and later aborting caused the weaker lock to be lost, has been fixed. Many new spec files were added for isolation tester framework, to ensure overall behavior is sane. There's probably room for several more tests. There were several reviewers of this patch; in particular, Noah Misch and Andres Freund spent considerable time in it. Original idea for the patch came from Simon Riggs, after a problem report by Joel Jacobson. Most code is from me, with contributions from Marti Raudsepp, Alexander Shulgin, Noah Misch and Andres Freund. This patch was discussed in several pgsql-hackers threads; the most important start at the following message-ids: AANLkTimo9XVcEzfiBR-ut3KVNDkjm2Vxh+t8kAmWjPuv@mail.gmail.com 1290721684-sup-3951@alvh.no-ip.org 1294953201-sup-2099@alvh.no-ip.org 1320343602-sup-2290@alvh.no-ip.org 1339690386-sup-8927@alvh.no-ip.org 4FE5FF020200002500048A3D@gw.wicourts.gov 4FEAB90A0200002500048B7D@gw.wicourts.gov
* Update copyrights for 2013Bruce Momjian2013-01-01
| | | | | Fully update git head, and update back branches in ./COPYRIGHT and legal.sgml files.
* Throw error if expiring tuple is again updated or deleted.Kevin Grittner2012-10-26
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This prevents surprising behavior when a FOR EACH ROW trigger BEFORE UPDATE or BEFORE DELETE directly or indirectly updates or deletes the the old row. Prior to this patch the requested action on the row could be silently ignored while all triggered actions based on the occurence of the requested action could be committed. One example of how this could happen is if the BEFORE DELETE trigger for a "parent" row deleted "children" which had trigger functions to update summary or status data on the parent. This also prevents similar surprising problems if the query has a volatile function which updates a target row while it is already being updated. There are related issues present in FOR UPDATE cursors and READ COMMITTED queries which are not handled by this patch. These issues need further evalution to determine what change, if any, is needed. Where the new error messages are generated, in most cases the best fix will be to move code from the BEFORE trigger to an AFTER trigger. Where this is not feasible, the trigger can avoid the error by re-issuing the triggering statement and returning NULL. Documentation changes will be submitted in a separate patch. Kevin Grittner and Tom Lane with input from Florian Pflug and Robert Haas, based on problems encountered during conversion of Wisconsin Circuit Court trigger logic to plpgsql triggers.
* Split tuple struct defs from htup.h to htup_details.hAlvaro Herrera2012-08-30
| | | | | | | | | | | | This reduces unnecessary exposure of other headers through htup.h, which is very widely included by many files. I have chosen to move the function prototypes to the new file as well, because that means htup.h no longer needs to include tupdesc.h. In itself this doesn't have much effect in indirect inclusion of tupdesc.h throughout the tree, because it's also required by execnodes.h; but it's something to explore in the future, and it seemed best to do the htup.h change now while I'm busy with it.
* Run pgindent on 9.2 source tree in preparation for first 9.3Bruce Momjian2012-06-10
| | | | commit-fest.
* Fix handling of data-modifying CTE subplans in EvalPlanQual.Tom Lane2012-01-28
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Update copyright notices for year 2012.Bruce Momjian2012-01-01
|
* Move Trigger and TriggerDesc structs out of rel.h into a new reltrigger.hAlvaro Herrera2011-07-04
| | | | | This lets us stop including rel.h into execnodes.h, which is a widely used header.
* pgindent run before PG 9.1 beta 1.Bruce Momjian2011-04-10
|
* Fix order of shutdown processing when CTEs contain inter-references.Tom Lane2011-02-25
| | | | | | 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.
* Support data-modifying commands (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE) in WITH.Tom Lane2011-02-25
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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
* Fix dangling-pointer problem in before-row update trigger processing.Tom Lane2011-02-21
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly.Tom Lane2011-01-12
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Stamp copyrights for year 2011.Bruce Momjian2011-01-01
|
* Support triggers on views.Tom Lane2010-10-10
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Remove cvs keywords from all files.Magnus Hagander2010-09-20
|
* SERIALIZABLE transactions are actually implemented beneath the covers withJoe Conway2010-09-11
| | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Reset the per-output-tuple exprcontext each time through the main loop inTom Lane2010-08-18
| | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Make NestLoop plan nodes pass outer-relation variables into their innerTom Lane2010-07-12
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* pgindent run for 9.0Bruce Momjian2010-02-26
|
* Remove old-style VACUUM FULL (which was known for a little while asTom Lane2010-02-08
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Fix memory leak created by deferrable-index-constraints patches.Tom Lane2010-01-31
| | | | | | | | | 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
* Update copyright for the year 2010.Bruce Momjian2010-01-02
|
* Add a WHEN clause to CREATE TRIGGER, allowing a boolean expression to beTom Lane2009-11-20
| | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminateTom Lane2009-10-26
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Split the processing of INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE operations out of execMain.c.Tom Lane2009-10-10
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