check_agg_arguments_walker threw an error upon seeing a SRF or window
function, but that is too aggressive: if the function is within a
sub-select then it's perfectly fine. I broke the SRF case in commit
0436f6bde by copying the logic for window functions ... but that was
broken too, and had been since commit eaccfded9.
Repair both cases in HEAD, and the window function case back to 9.3.
9.2 gets this right.
expression_returns_set() used to short-circuit its recursion upon
seeing certain node types, such as DistinctExpr, that it knew the
executor did not support set-valued arguments for. That was never
inherent, though, just a reflection of laziness in execQual.c.
With the new implementation of SRFs there is no reason to think
that any scalar-valued expression node could not have a set-valued
subexpression, except for AggRefs and WindowFuncs where we know there
is a parser check rejecting it. And indeed, the shortcut causes
unexpected failures for cases such as a SRF underneath DistinctExpr,
because the planner stops looking for SRFs too soon.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5259.1497044025@sss.pgh.pa.us
When we reimplemented SRFs in commit 69f4b9c85, our initial choice was
to allow the behavior to vary from historical practice in cases where a
SRF call appeared within a conditional-execution construct (currently,
only CASE or COALESCE). But that was controversial to begin with, and
subsequent discussion has resulted in a consensus that it's better to
throw an error instead of executing the query differently from before,
so long as we can provide a reasonably clear error message and a way to
rewrite the query.
Hence, add a parser mechanism to allow detection of such cases during
parse analysis. The mechanism just requires storing, in the ParseState,
a pointer to the set-returning FuncExpr or OpExpr most recently emitted
by parse analysis. Then the parsing functions for CASE and COALESCE can
detect the presence of a SRF in their arguments by noting whether this
pointer changes while analyzing their arguments. Furthermore, if it does,
it provides a suitable error cursor location for the complaint. (This
means that if there's more than one SRF in the arguments, the error will
point at the last one to be analyzed not the first. While connoisseurs of
parsing behavior might find that odd, it's unlikely the average user would
ever notice.)
While at it, we can also provide more specific error messages than before
about some pre-existing restrictions, such as no-SRFs-within-aggregates.
Also, reject at parse time cases where a NULLIF or IS DISTINCT FROM
construct would need to return a set. We've never supported that, but the
restriction is depended on in more subtle ways now, so it seems wise to
detect it at the start.
Also, provide some documentation about how to rewrite a SRF-within-CASE
query using a custom wrapper SRF.
It turns out that the information_schema.user_mapping_options view
contained an instance of exactly the behavior we're now forbidding; but
rewriting it makes it more clear and safer too.
initdb forced because of user_mapping_options change.
Patch by me, with error message suggestions from Alvaro Herrera and
Andres Freund, pursuant to a complaint from Regina Obe.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/000001d2d5de$d8d66170$8a832450$@pcorp.us
This extends the Aggregate node with two new features: HashAggregate
can now run multiple hashtables concurrently, and a new strategy
MixedAggregate populates hashtables while doing sorted grouping.
The planner will now attempt to save as many sorts as possible when
planning grouping sets queries, while not exceeding work_mem for the
estimated combined sizes of all hashtables used. No SQL-level changes
are required. There should be no user-visible impact other than the
new EXPLAIN output and possible changes to result ordering when ORDER
BY was not used (which affected a few regression tests). The
enable_hashagg option is respected.
Author: Andrew Gierth
Reviewers: Mark Dilger, Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87vatszyhj.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Given a targetlist like "srf(x), f(srf(x))", split_pathtarget_at_srfs()
decided that it needed two levels of ProjectSet nodes, failing to notice
that the two SRF calls are textually equal(). Because of that, setrefs.c
would convert the upper ProjectSet's tlist to "Var1, f(Var1)" (where Var1
represents a reference to the srf(x) output of the lower ProjectSet).
This triggered an assertion in nodeProjectSet.c complaining that it found
no SRFs to evaluate, as reported by Erik Rijkers.
What we want in such a case is to evaluate srf(x) only once and use a plain
Result node to compute "Var1, f(Var1)"; that gives results similar to what
previous versions produced, whereas allowing srf(x) to be evaluated again
in an upper ProjectSet would square the number of rows emitted.
Furthermore, even if the SRF calls aren't textually identical, we want them
to be evaluated in lockstep, because that's what happened in the old
implementation. But split_pathtarget_at_srfs() got this completely wrong,
using two levels of ProjectSet for a case like "srf(x), f(srf(y))".
Hence, rewrite split_pathtarget_at_srfs() from the ground up so that it
groups SRFs according to the depth of nesting of SRFs in their arguments.
This is pretty much how we envisioned that working originally, but I blew
it when it came to implementation.
In passing, optimize the case of target == input_target, which I noticed
is not only possible but quite common.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/dcbd2853c05d22088766553d60dc78c6@xs4all.nl
Due to the changed costing in that commit hash-aggregates started to
be used, which results in big-endian vs. little-endian output
differences. Disable hash-aggs for those tests.
Author: Andres Freund, with input from Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22891.1484791792@sss.pgh.pa.us
Upcoming changes to the hash table code used, among others, for grouping
and set operations will change the output order for a few queries. To
make it less likely that actual bugs are hidden between regression test
ordering changes, and to make the tests robust against platform
dependant ordering, add ORDER BYs guaranteeing the output order.
As it's possible that some of the changes expose platform dependant
ordering, push this earlier, to let the buildfarm shake out potentially
unstable results.
Discussion: <20160727004333.r3e2k2y6fvk2ntup@alap3.anarazel.de>
Teach the parser to reject misplaced set-returning functions during parse
analysis using p_expr_kind, in much the same way as we do for aggregates
and window functions (cf commit eaccfded9). While this isn't complete
(it misses nesting-based restrictions), it's much better than the previous
error reporting for such cases, and it allows elimination of assorted
ad-hoc expression_returns_set() error checks. We could add nesting checks
later if it seems important to catch all cases at parse time.
There is one case the parser will now throw error for although previous
versions allowed it, which is SRFs in the tlist of an UPDATE. That never
behaved sensibly (since it's ill-defined which generated row should be
used to perform the update) and it's hard to see why it should not be
treated as an error. It's a release-note-worthy change though.
Also, add a new Query field hasTargetSRFs reporting whether there are
any SRFs in the targetlist (including GROUP BY/ORDER BY expressions).
The parser can now set that basically for free during parse analysis,
and we can use it in a number of places to avoid expression_returns_set
searches. (There will be more such checks soon.) In some places, this
allows decontorting the logic since it's no longer expensive to check for
SRFs in the tlist --- so I made the checks parallel to the handling of
hasAggs/hasWindowFuncs wherever it seemed appropriate.
catversion bump because adding a Query field changes stored rules.
Andres Freund and Tom Lane
Discussion: <24639.1473782855@sss.pgh.pa.us>
We're considering changing the implementation of targetlist SRFs
considerably, and a lot of the current behaviour isn't tested in our
regression tests. Thus it seems useful to increase coverage to avoid
accidental behaviour changes.
It's quite possible that some of the plans here will require adjustments
to avoid falling afoul of ordering differences (e.g. hashed group
bys). The buildfarm will tell us.
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion: <20160827214829.zo2dfb5jaikii5nw@alap3.anarazel.de>
