| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Fully update git head, and update back branches in ./COPYRIGHT and
legal.sgml files.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
For those variables only used when asserts are enabled, use a new
macro PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY, which expands to
__attribute__((unused)) when asserts are not enabled.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
provided by Andrew.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
mode while callers hold pointers to in-memory tuples. I reported this for
the case of nodeWindowAgg's primary scan tuple, but inspection of the code
shows that all of the calls in nodeWindowAgg and nodeCtescan are at risk.
For the moment, fix it with a rather brute-force approach of copying
whenever one of the at-risk callers requests a tuple. Later we might
think of some sort of reference-count approach to reduce tuple copying.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
didn't actually work, because nodeRecursiveunion.c creates the underlying
tuplestore with backward scan disabled; which is a decision that we shouldn't
reverse because of performance cost. We could imagine adding signaling from
WorkTableScan to RecursiveUnion about whether backward scan is needed ...
but in practice it'd be a waste of effort, because there simply isn't any
current or plausible future scenario where WorkTableScan would be called on
to scan backward. So just dike out the code that claims to support it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
in their targetlists had better reset ps_TupFromTlist during ReScan calls.
There's no need to back-patch here since nodeAgg and nodeGroup didn't
even pretend to support SRFs in prior releases.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
RecursiveUnion to which it refers. It turns out that we can just postpone the
relevant initialization steps until the first exec call for the node, by which
time the ancestor node must surely be initialized. Per report from Greg Stark.
|
|
|
There are some unimplemented aspects: recursive queries must use UNION ALL
(should allow UNION too), and we don't have SEARCH or CYCLE clauses.
These might or might not get done for 8.4, but even without them it's a
pretty useful feature.
There are also a couple of small loose ends and definitional quibbles,
which I'll send a memo about to pgsql-hackers shortly. But let's land
the patch now so we can get on with other development.
Yoshiyuki Asaba, with lots of help from Tatsuo Ishii and Tom Lane
|
