Remove the code for inserting flag columns in the inputs of a SetOp.
That was the only reason why there would be resjunk columns in a
set-operations plan tree, so we can get rid of some code that
supported that, too.
Get rid of choose_hashed_setop() in favor of building Paths for
the hashed and sorted alternatives, and letting them fight it out
within add_path().
Remove set_operation_ordered_results_useful(), which was giving wrong
answers due to examining the wrong ancestor node: we need to examine
the immediate SetOperationStmt parent not the topmost node. Instead
make each caller of recurse_set_operations() pass down the relevant
parent node. (This thinko seems to have led only to wasted planning
cycles and possibly-inferior plans, not wrong query answers. Perhaps
we should back-patch it, but I'm not doing so right now.)
Teach generate_nonunion_paths() to consider pre-sorted inputs for
sorted SetOps, rather than always generating a Sort node.
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo and David Rowley for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1850138.1731549611@sss.pgh.pa.us
When pulling up a subquery that is under an outer join, if the
subquery's target list contains a strict expression that uses a
subquery variable, it's okay to pull up the expression without
wrapping it in a PlaceHolderVar: if the subquery variable is forced to
NULL by the outer join, the expression result will come out as NULL
too.
If the strict expression does not contain any subquery variables, the
current code always wraps it in a PlaceHolderVar. While this is not
incorrect, the analysis could be tighter: if the strict expression
contains any variables of rels that are under the same lowest nulling
outer join as the subquery, we can also avoid wrapping it. This is
safe because if the subquery variable is forced to NULL by the outer
join, the variables of rels that are under the same lowest nulling
outer join will also be forced to NULL, resulting in the expression
evaluating to NULL as well. Therefore, it's not necessary to force
the expression to be evaluated below the outer join. It could be
beneficial to get rid of such PHVs because they could imply lateral
dependencies, which force us to resort to nestloop joins.
This patch checks if the lateral references in the strict expression
contain any variables of rels under the same lowest nulling outer join
as the subquery, and avoids wrapping the expression in that case.
This is fundamentally a generalization of the optimizations for bare
Vars and PHVs introduced in commit f64ec81a8.
No backpatch as this could result in plan changes.
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4_ENtfRdLaM_bXAxiKRYO7DmwDBDG4_2=VTDi0mJP-jAw@mail.gmail.com
The topic of turning EXPLAIN's BUFFERS option on with the ANALYZE option
has come up a few times over the past few years. In many ways, doing this
seems like a good idea as it may be more obvious to users why a given
query is running more slowly than they might expect. Also, from my own
(David's) personal experience, I've seen users posting to the mailing
lists with two identical plans, one slow and one fast asking why their
query is sometimes slow. In many cases, this is due to additional reads.
Having BUFFERS on by default may help reduce some of these questions, and
if not, make it more obvious to the user before they post, or save a
round-trip to the mailing list when additional I/O effort is the cause of
the slowness.
The general consensus is that we want BUFFERS on by default with
ANALYZE. However, there were more than zero concerns raised with doing
so. The primary reason against is the additional verbosity, making it
harder to read large plans. Another concern was that buffer information
isn't always useful so may not make sense to have it on by default.
It's currently December, so let's commit this to see if anyone comes
forward with a strong objection against making this change. We have over
half a year remaining in the v18 cycle where we could still easily consider
reverting this if someone were to come forward with a convincing enough
reason as to why doing this is a bad idea.
There were two patches independently submitted to achieve this goal, one
by me and the other by Guillaume. This commit is a mix of both of these
patches with some additional work done by me to adjust various
additional places in the documentation which include EXPLAIN ANALYZE
output.
Author: Guillaume Lelarge, David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas, Greg Sabino Mullane, Michael Christofides
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANNMO++W7MM8T0KyXN3ZheXXt-uLVM3aEtZd+WNfZ=obxffUiA@mail.gmail.com
When pulling up a lateral subquery that is under an outer join, the
current code always wraps a Var or PHV in the subquery's targetlist
into a new PlaceHolderVar if it is a lateral reference to something
outside the subquery. This is necessary when the Var/PHV references
the non-nullable side of the outer join from the nullable side: we
need to ensure that it is evaluated at the right place and hence is
forced to null when the outer join should do so. However, if the
referenced rel is under the same lowest nulling outer join, we can
actually omit the wrapping. That's safe because if the subquery
variable is forced to NULL by the outer join, the lateral reference
variable will come out as NULL too. It could be beneficial to get rid
of such PHVs because they imply lateral dependencies, which force us
to resort to nestloop joins.
This patch leverages the newly introduced nullingrel_info to check if
the nullingrels of the subquery RTE are a subset of those of the
laterally referenced rel, in order to determine if the referenced rel
is under the same lowest nulling outer join.
No backpatch as this could result in plan changes.
Author: Richard Guo
Reviewed-by: James Coleman, Dmitry Dolgov, Andrei Lepikhov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48uk6C7Z9m_FNT8_21CMCk68hrgAsz=z6zpP1PNZMkeoQ@mail.gmail.com
As I'd feared, commit 5c9d8636d was still a few bricks shy of a load.
We can't just leave pulled-up lateral-reference Vars with no new
nullingrels: we have to carefully compute what subset of the
to-be-replaced Var's nullingrels apply to them, else we still get
"wrong varnullingrels" errors. This is a bit tedious, but it looks
like we can use the nullingrel data this patch computes for other
purposes, enabling better optimization. We don't want to inject
unnecessary plan changes into stable branches though, so leave that
idea for a later HEAD-only patch.
Patch by me, but thanks to Richard Guo for devising a test case that
broke 5c9d8636d, and for preliminary investigation about how to fix
it. As before, back-patch to v16.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1tGn4j-0003zi-MP@gemulon.postgresql.org
If we are pulling up a subquery that's under an outer join, and
the subquery's target list contains a strict expression that uses
both a subquery variable and a lateral-reference variable, it's okay
to pull up the expression without wrapping it in a PlaceHolderVar.
That's safe because if the subquery variable is forced to NULL
by the outer join, the expression result will come out as NULL too,
so we don't have to force that outcome by evaluating the expression
below the outer join. It'd be correct to wrap in a PHV, but that can
lead to very significantly worse plans, since we'd then have to use
a nestloop plan to pass down the lateral reference to where the
expression will be evaluated.
However, when we do that, we should not mark the lateral reference
variable as being nulled by the outer join, because it isn't after
we pull up the expression in this way. So the marking logic added
by cb8e50a4a was incorrect in this detail, leading to "wrong
varnullingrels" errors from the consistency-checking logic in
setrefs.c. It seems to be sufficient to just not mark lateral
references at all in this case. (I have a nagging feeling that more
complexity may be needed in cases where there are several levels of
outer join, but some attempts to break it with that didn't succeed.)
Per report from Bertrand Mamasam. Back-patch to v16, as the previous
patch was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CACZ67_UA_EVrqiFXJu9XK50baEpH=ofEPJswa2kFxg6xuSw-ww@mail.gmail.com
Commit 2489d76c4 removed some logic from pullup_replace_vars()
that avoided wrapping a PlaceHolderVar around a pulled-up
subquery output expression if the expression could be proven
to go to NULL anyway (because it contained Vars or PHVs of the
pulled-up relation and did not contain non-strict constructs).
But removing that logic turns out to cause performance regressions
in some cases, because the extra PHV blocks subexpression folding,
and will do so even if outer-join reduction later turns it into a
no-op with no phnullingrels bits. This can for example prevent
an expression from being matched to an index.
The reason for always adding a PHV was to ensure we had someplace
to put the varnullingrels marker bits of the Var being replaced.
However, it turns out we can optimize in exactly the same cases that
the previous code did, because we can instead attach the needed
varnullingrels bits to the contained Var(s)/PHV(s).
This is not a complete solution --- it would be even better if we
could remove PHVs after reducing them to no-ops. It doesn't look
practical to back-patch such an improvement, but this change seems
safe and at least gets rid of the performance-regression cases.
Per complaint from Nikhil Raj. Back-patch to v16 where the
problem appeared.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAG1ps1xvnTZceKK24OUfMKLPvDP2vjT-d+F2AOCWbw_v3KeEgg@mail.gmail.com
This recently-added test case checks the plan of an inner join
between two identical tables. It's just chance which join order
the planner will pick, and in the presence of any variation in
the underlying statistics, the displayed plan might change.
Add a WHERE condition to break the cost symmetry and hopefully
stabilize matters.
(We're still trying to understand exactly why the underlying
statistics aren't as stable as intended, but this seems like
a good change anyway, since this test would surely bite us
again in future.)
While here, clean up assorted comment spelling, grammar, and
whitespace problems.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4168116.1711720146@sss.pgh.pa.us
Historically we've printed SubPlan expression nodes as "(SubPlan N)",
which is pretty uninformative. Trying to reproduce the original SQL
for the subquery is still as impractical as before, and would be
mighty verbose as well. However, we can still do better than that.
Displaying the "testexpr" when present, and adding a keyword to
indicate the SubLinkType, goes a long way toward showing what's
really going on.
In addition, this patch gets rid of EXPLAIN's use of "$n" to represent
subplan and initplan output Params. Instead we now print "(SubPlan
N).colX" or "(InitPlan N).colX" to represent the X'th output column
of that subplan. This eliminates confusion with the use of "$n" to
represent PARAM_EXTERN Params, and it's useful for the first part of
this change because it eliminates needing some other indication of
which subplan is referenced by a SubPlan that has a testexpr.
In passing, this adds simple regression test coverage of the
ROWCOMPARE_SUBLINK code paths, which were entirely unburdened
by testing before.
Tom Lane and Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Aleksander Alekseev.
Thanks to Chantal Keller for raising the question of whether
this area couldn't be improved.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2838538.1705692747@sss.pgh.pa.us
For ANY-SUBLINK, we adopted a two-stage pull-up approach to handle
different types of scenarios. In the first stage, the sublink is pulled up
as a subquery. Because of this, when writing this code, we did not have
the ability to perform lateral joins, and therefore, we were unable to
pull up Var with varlevelsup=1. Now that we have the ability to use
lateral joins, we can eliminate this limitation.
Author: Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com>
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru>
Reviewed-by: Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
This allows aliases for sub-SELECTs and VALUES clauses in the FROM
clause to be omitted.
This is an extension of the SQL standard, supported by some other
database systems, and so eases the transition from such systems, as
well as removing the minor inconvenience caused by requiring these
aliases.
Patch by me, reviewed by Tom Lane.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCUCGCf82=hxd9N5n6xGHPyYpQnxW8HneeH+uP7yNALkWA@mail.gmail.com
The need for this was foreseen long ago, but when record_eq
actually became hashable (in commit 01e658fa7), we missed updating
this spot.
Per bug #17363 from Elvis Pranskevichus. Back-patch to v14 where
the faulty commit came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17363-f6d42fd0d726be02@postgresql.org
It's possible for us to copy an AlternativeSubPlan expression node
into multiple places, for example the scan quals of several
partition children. Then it's possible that we choose a different
one of the alternatives as optimal in each place. Commit 41efb8340
failed to consider this scenario, so its attempt to remove "unused"
subplans could remove subplans that were still used elsewhere.
Fix by delaying the removal logic until we've examined all the
AlternativeSubPlans in a given query level. (This does assume that
AlternativeSubPlans couldn't get copied to other query levels, but
for the foreseeable future that's fine; cf qual_is_pushdown_safe.)
Per report from Rajkumar Raghuwanshi. Back-patch to v14
where the faulty logic came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6==O3NNZC3bZ2prRYv3cjm3_Zw1GfzmOjEVqYN4jub2+Q@mail.gmail.com
Many older tests where written in a style like
SELECT '' AS two, i.* FROM INT2_TBL
where the first column indicated the number of expected result rows.
This has gotten increasingly out of date, as the test data fixtures
have expanded, so a lot of these were wrong and misleading. Moreover,
this style isn't really necessary, since the psql output already shows
the number of result rows.
To clean this up, remove all those extra columns.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1a25312b-2686-380d-3c67-7a69094a999f%40enterprisedb.com
When commit bd3daddaf introduced AlternativeSubPlans, I had some
ambitions towards allowing the choice of subplan to change during
execution. That has not happened, or even been thought about, in the
ensuing twelve years; so it seems like a failed experiment. So let's
rip that out and resolve the choice of subplan at the end of planning
(in setrefs.c) rather than during executor startup. This has a number
of positive benefits:
* Removal of a few hundred lines of executor code, since
AlternativeSubPlans need no longer be supported there.
* Removal of executor-startup overhead (particularly, initialization
of subplans that won't be used).
* Removal of incidental costs of having a larger plan tree, such as
tree-scanning and copying costs in the plancache; not to mention
setrefs.c's own costs of processing the discarded subplans.
* EXPLAIN no longer has to print a weird (and undocumented)
representation of an AlternativeSubPlan choice; it sees only the
subplan actually used. This should mean less confusion for users.
* Since setrefs.c knows which subexpression of a plan node it's
working on at any instant, it's possible to adjust the estimated
number of executions of the subplan based on that. For example,
we should usually estimate more executions of a qual expression
than a targetlist expression. The implementation used here is
pretty simplistic, because we don't want to expend a lot of cycles
on the issue; but it's better than ignoring the point entirely,
as the executor had to.
That last point might possibly result in shifting the choice
between hashed and non-hashed EXISTS subplans in a few cases,
but in general this patch isn't meant to change planner choices.
Since we're doing the resolution so late, it's really impossible
to change any plan choices outside the AlternativeSubPlan itself.
Patch by me; thanks to David Rowley for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1992952.1592785225@sss.pgh.pa.us
nodeSubplan.c expects that the testexpr for a hashable ANY SubPlan
has the form of one or more OpExprs whose LHS is an expression of the
outer query's, while the RHS is an expression over Params representing
output columns of the subquery. However, the planner only went as far
as verifying that the clauses were all binary OpExprs. This works
99.99% of the time, because the clauses have the right shape when
emitted by the parser --- but it's possible for function inlining to
break that, as reported by PegoraroF10. To fix, teach the planner
to check that the LHS and RHS contain the right things, or more
accurately don't contain the wrong things. Given that this has been
broken for years without anyone noticing, it seems sufficient to just
give up hashing when it happens, rather than go to the trouble of
commuting the clauses back again (which wouldn't necessarily work
anyway).
While poking at that, I also noticed that nodeSubplan.c had a baked-in
assumption that the number of hash clauses is identical to the number
of subquery output columns. Again, that's fine as far as parser output
goes, but it's not hard to break it via function inlining. There seems
little reason for that assumption though --- AFAICS, the only thing
it's buying us is not having to store the number of hash clauses
explicitly. Adding code to the planner to reject such cases would take
more code than getting nodeSubplan.c to cope, so I fixed it that way.
This has been broken for as long as we've had hashable SubPlans,
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1549209182255-0.post@n3.nabble.com
The qual pushdown logic assumed that all Vars in a restriction clause
must be Vars referencing subquery outputs; but since we introduced
LATERAL, it's possible for such a Var to be a lateral reference instead.
This led to an assertion failure in debug builds. In a non-debug
build, there might be no ill effects (if qual_is_pushdown_safe decided
the qual was unsafe anyway), or we could get failures later due to
construction of an invalid plan. I've not gone to much length to
characterize the possible failures, but at least segfaults in the
executor have been observed.
Given that this has been busted since 9.3 and it took this long for
anybody to notice, I judge that the case isn't worth going to great
lengths to optimize. Hence, fix by just teaching qual_is_pushdown_safe
that such quals are unsafe to push down, matching the previous behavior
when it accidentally didn't fail.
Per report from Tom Ellis. Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200713175124.GQ8220@cloudinit-builder
Commit 356687bd8 omitted to remove leftover code for destroying
a hashed subplan's hash tables, with the result that the tables
were always rebuilt not reused; this leads to severe memory
leakage if a hashed subplan is re-executed enough times.
Moreover, the code for reusing the hashnulls table had a typo
that would have made it do the wrong thing if it were reached.
Looking at the code coverage report shows severe under-coverage
of the potential callers of ResetTupleHashTable, so add some test
cases that exercise them.
Andreas Karlsson and Tom Lane, per reports from Ranier Vilela
and Justin Pryzby.
Backpatch to v11, as the faulty commit was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/edb62547-c453-c35b-3ed6-a069e4d6b937@proxel.se
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEudQAo=DCebm1RXtig9OH+QivpS97sMkikt0A9qHmMUs+g6ZA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200210032547.GA1412@telsasoft.com
Commit 9b63c13f0 turns out to have been fundamentally misguided:
the parent node's subPlan list is by no means the only way in which
a child SubPlan node can be hooked into the outer execution state.
As shown in bug #16213 from Matt Jibson, we can also get short-lived
tuple table slots added to the outer es_tupleTable list. At this point
I have little faith that there aren't other possible connections as
well; the long time it took to notice this problem shows that this
isn't a heavily-exercised situation.
Therefore, revert that fix, returning to the coding that passed a
NULL parent plan pointer down to the transiently-built subexpressions.
That gives us a pretty good guarantee that they won't hook into the
outer executor state in any way. But then we need some other solution
to make SubPlans work. Adopt the solution speculated about in the
previous commit's log message: do expression initialization at plan
startup for just those VALUES rows containing SubPlans, abandoning the
goal of reclaiming memory intra-query for those rows. In practice it
seems unlikely that queries containing a vast number of VALUES rows
would be using SubPlans in them, so this should not give up much.
(BTW, this test case also refutes my claim in connection with the prior
commit that the issue only arises with use of LATERAL. That was just
wrong: some variants of SubLink always produce SubPlans.)
As with previous patch, back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16213-871ac3bc208ecf23@postgresql.org
force_parallel_mode = regress is supposed to force use of a Gather
node without having any impact on EXPLAIN output. But it failed to
accomplish that if both ANALYZE and VERBOSE are given, because that
enables per-worker output data that you wouldn't see if the Gather
hadn't been inserted. Improve the logic so that we suppress the
per-worker data too.
This allows putting the new test case added by commit 5935917ce
back into the originally intended form (cf. 776a2c887, 22864f6e0).
We can also get rid of a kluge in subselect.sql, which previously
had to clean up after force_parallel_mode's failure to do what it
said on the tin.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18445.1576177309@sss.pgh.pa.us
Commit bf6c614a2 rearranged the lookup of the comparison operators
needed in a hashed subplan, and in so doing, broke the cross-type
case: it caused the original LHS-vs-RHS operator to be used to compare
hash table entries too (which of course are all of the RHS type).
This leads to C functions being passed a Datum that is not of the
type they expect, with the usual hazards of crashes and unauthorized
server memory disclosure.
For the set of hashable cross-type operators present in v11 core
Postgres, this bug is nearly harmless on 64-bit machines, which
may explain why it escaped earlier detection. But it is a live
security hazard on 32-bit machines; and of course there may be
extensions that add more hashable cross-type operators, which
would increase the risk.
Reported by Andreas Seltenreich. Back-patch to v11 where the
problem came in.
Security: CVE-2019-10209
This has to be prevented because inlining would result in multiple
self-references, which we don't support (and in fact that's disallowed
by the SQL spec, see statements about linearly vs. nonlinearly
recursive queries). Bug fix for commit 608b167f9.
Per report from Yaroslav Schekin (via Andrew Gierth)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87wolmg60q.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
This adds a flag "deterministic" to collations. If that is false,
such a collation disables various optimizations that assume that
strings are equal only if they are byte-wise equal. That then allows
use cases such as case-insensitive or accent-insensitive comparisons
or handling of strings with different Unicode normal forms.
This functionality is only supported with the ICU provider. At least
glibc doesn't appear to have any locales that work in a
nondeterministic way, so it's not worth supporting this for the libc
provider.
The term "deterministic comparison" in this context is from Unicode
Technical Standard #10
(https://unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Deterministic_Comparison).
This patch makes changes in three areas:
- CREATE COLLATION DDL changes and system catalog changes to support
this new flag.
- Many executor nodes and auxiliary code are extended to track
collations. Previously, this code would just throw away collation
information, because the eventually-called user-defined functions
didn't use it since they only cared about equality, which didn't
need collation information.
- String data type functions that do equality comparisons and hashing
are changed to take the (non-)deterministic flag into account. For
comparison, this just means skipping various shortcuts and tie
breakers that use byte-wise comparison. For hashing, we first need
to convert the input string to a canonical "sort key" using the ICU
analogue of strxfrm().
Reviewed-by: Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1ccc668f-4cbc-0bef-af67-450b47cdfee7@2ndquadrant.com
Future-proofing against a common mistake in attempts to optimize NOT IN.
We don't have such an optimization right now, but attempts to do so
are in the works, and some of 'em are buggy. Add a regression test case
covering the point.
David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f90E9agVZryVyUpbHQbjTt5ExqS2Fsodmt5_A7E_cEyVA@mail.gmail.com
Historically we've always materialized the full output of a CTE query,
treating WITH as an optimization fence (so that, for example, restrictions
from the outer query cannot be pushed into it). This is appropriate when
the CTE query is INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE, or is recursive; but when the CTE
query is non-recursive and side-effect-free, there's no hazard of changing
the query results by pushing restrictions down.
Another argument for materialization is that it can avoid duplicate
computation of an expensive WITH query --- but that only applies if
the WITH query is called more than once in the outer query. Even then
it could still be a net loss, if each call has restrictions that
would allow just a small part of the WITH query to be computed.
Hence, let's change the behavior for WITH queries that are non-recursive
and side-effect-free. By default, we will inline them into the outer
query (removing the optimization fence) if they are called just once.
If they are called more than once, we will keep the old behavior by
default, but the user can override this and force inlining by specifying
NOT MATERIALIZED. Lastly, the user can force the old behavior by
specifying MATERIALIZED; this would mainly be useful when the query had
deliberately been employing WITH as an optimization fence to prevent a
poor choice of plan.
Andreas Karlsson, Andrew Gierth, David Fetter
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87sh48ffhb.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Add support function requests for estimating the selectivity, cost,
and number of result rows (if a SRF) of the target function.
The lack of a way to estimate selectivity of a boolean-returning
function in WHERE has been a recognized deficiency of the planner
since Berkeley days. This commit finally fixes it.
In addition, non-constant estimates of cost and number of output
rows are now possible. We still fall back to looking at procost
and prorows if the support function doesn't service the request,
of course.
To make concrete use of the possibility of estimating output rowcount
for SRFs, this commit adds support functions for array_unnest(anyarray)
and the integer variants of generate_series; the lack of plausible
rowcount estimates for those, even when it's obvious to a human,
has been a repeated subject of complaints. Obviously, much more
could now be done in this line, but I'm mostly just trying to get
the infrastructure in place.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15193.1548028093@sss.pgh.pa.us
When executing a SubPlan in an expression, the EState's direction
field was left alone, resulting in an attempt to execute the subplan
backwards if it was encountered during a backwards scan of a cursor.
Also, though much less likely, it was possible to reach the execution
of an InitPlan while in backwards-scan state.
Repair by saving/restoring estate->es_direction and forcing forward
scan mode in the relevant places.
Backpatch all the way, since this has been broken since 8.3 (prior to
commit c7ff7663e, SubPlans had their own EStates rather than sharing
the parent plan's, so there was no confusion over scan direction).
Per bug #15336 reported by Vladimir Baranoff; analysis and patch by
me, review by Tom Lane.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/153449812167.1304.1741624125628126322@wrigleys.postgresql.org
When nodeValuesscan.c was written, it was impossible to have a SubPlan in
VALUES --- any sub-SELECT there would have to be uncorrelated and thereby
would produce an InitPlan instead. We therefore took a shortcut in the
logic that throws away a ValuesScan's per-row expression evaluation data
structures. This was broken by the introduction of LATERAL however; a
sub-SELECT containing a lateral reference produces a correlated SubPlan.
The cleanest fix for this would be to give up the optimization of
discarding the expression eval state. But that still seems pretty
unappetizing for long VALUES lists. It seems to work to just prevent
the subexpressions from hooking into the ValuesScan node's subPlan
list, so let's do that and see how well it works. (If this breaks,
due to additional connections between the subexpressions and the outer
query structures, we might consider compromises like throwing away data
only for VALUES rows not containing SubPlans.)
Per bug #14924 from Christian Duta. Back-patch to 9.3 where LATERAL
was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171124120836.1463.5310@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Although joinaliasvars lists coming out of the parser are quite simple,
those lists can contain arbitrarily complex expressions after subquery
pullup. We do not perform expression preprocessing on them, meaning that
expressions in those lists will not meet the expectations of later phases
of the planner (for example, that they do not contain SubLinks). This had
been thought pretty harmless, since we don't intentionally touch those
lists in later phases --- but Andreas Seltenreich found a case in which
adjust_appendrel_attrs() could recurse into a joinaliasvars list and then
die on its assertion that it never sees a SubLink. We considered a couple
of localized fixes to prevent that specific case from looking at the
joinaliasvars lists, but really this seems like a generic hazard for all
expression processing in the planner. Therefore, probably the best answer
is to delete the joinaliasvars lists from the parsetree at the end of
expression preprocessing, so that there are no reachable expressions that
haven't been through preprocessing.
The case Andreas found seems to be harmless in non-Assert builds, and so
far there are no field reports suggesting that there are user-visible
effects in other cases. I considered back-patching this anyway, but
it turns out that Andreas' test doesn't fail at all in 9.4-9.6, because
in those versions adjust_appendrel_attrs contains code (added in commit
842faa714 and removed again in commit 215b43cdc) to process SubLinks
rather than complain about them. Barring discovery of another path by
which unprocessed joinaliasvars lists can cause trouble, the most
prudent compromise seems to be to patch this into v10 but not further.
Patch by me, with thanks to Amit Langote for initial investigation
and review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87r2tvt9f1.fsf@ansel.ydns.eu
Up until now, when parallel query was used, no details about the
sort method or space used by the workers were available; details
were shown only for any sorting done by the leader. Fix that.
Commit 1177ab1dabf72bafee8f19d904cee3a299f25892 forced the test case
added by commit 1f6d515a67ec98194c23a5db25660856c9aab944 to run
without parallelism; now that we have this infrastructure, allow
that again, with a little tweaking to make it pass with and without
force_parallel_mode.
Robert Haas and Tom Lane
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoa2VBZW6S8AAXfhpHczb=Rf6RqQ2br+zJvEgwJ0uoD_tQ@mail.gmail.com
The test case added by commit 1f6d515a6 fails on buildfarm members that
have force_parallel_mode turned on, because we currently don't report sort
performance details from worker processes back to the master. To fix that,
just make the test table be temp rather than regular; that's a good idea
anyway to forestall any possible interference from auto-analyze.
(The restriction that workers can't access temp tables might go away
someday, but almost certainly not before the other thing gets fixed.)
Also, improve the test so that we retain as much as possible of the
EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. This aids debugging failures, and might also
expose problems that the preceding version masked.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CADE5jYLuugnEEUsyW6Q_4mZFYTxHxaVCQmGAsF0yiY8ZDggi-w@mail.gmail.com
If we forcibly place a Material node atop a finished subplan, we need
to move any initPlans attached to the subplan up to the Material node,
in order to keep SS_finalize_plan() happy. I'd figured this out in
commit 7b67a0a49 for the case of materializing a cursor plan, but out of
an abundance of caution, I put the initPlan movement hack at the call
site for that case, rather than inside materialize_finished_plan().
That was the wrong thing, because it turns out to also be necessary for
the only other caller of materialize_finished_plan(), ie subselect.c.
We lacked any test cases that exposed the mistake, but bug#14524 from
Wei Congrui shows that it's possible to get an initPlan reference into
the top tlist in that case too, and then SS_finalize_plan() complains.
Hence, move the hack into materialize_finished_plan().
In HEAD, also relocate some recently-added tests in subselect.sql, which
I'd unthinkingly dropped into the middle of a sequence of related tests.
Report: https://postgr.es/m/20170202060020.1400.89021@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Previously, we left such literals alone if the query or subquery had
no properties forcing a type decision to be made (such as an ORDER BY or
DISTINCT clause using that output column). This meant that "unknown" could
be an exposed output column type, which has never been a great idea because
it could result in strange failures later on. For example, an outer query
that tried to do any operations on an unknown-type subquery output would
generally fail with some weird error like "failed to find conversion
function from unknown to text" or "could not determine which collation to
use for string comparison". Also, if the case occurred in a CREATE VIEW's
query then the view would have an unknown-type column, causing similar
failures in queries trying to use the view.
To fix, at the tail end of parse analysis of a query, forcibly convert any
remaining "unknown" literals in its SELECT or RETURNING list to type text.
However, provide a switch to suppress that, and use it in the cases of
SELECT inside a set operation or INSERT command. In those cases we already
had type resolution rules that make use of context information from outside
the subquery proper, and we don't want to change that behavior.
Also, change creation of an unknown-type column in a relation from a
warning to a hard error. The error should be unreachable now in CREATE
VIEW or CREATE MATVIEW, but it's still possible to explicitly say "unknown"
in CREATE TABLE or CREATE (composite) TYPE. We want to forbid that because
it's nothing but a foot-gun.
This change creates a pg_upgrade failure case: a matview that contains an
unknown-type column can't be pg_upgraded, because reparsing the matview's
defining query will now decide that the column is of type text, which
doesn't match the cstring-like storage that the old materialized column
would actually have. Add a checking pass to detect that. While at it,
we can detect tables or composite types that would fail, essentially
for free. Those would fail safely anyway later on, but we might as
well fail earlier.
This patch is by me, but it owes something to previous investigations
by Rahila Syed. Also thanks to Ashutosh Bapat and Michael Paquier for
review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28uwwbL9HUM-WR=hromW1Cvamkn7O-g8fPY2m=_7muJ0oA@mail.gmail.com
Pushing an upper-level restriction clause into an unflattened
subquery-in-FROM is okay when the subquery contains no SRFs in its
targetlist, or when it does but the SRFs are unreferenced by the clause
*and the clause is not volatile*. Otherwise, we're changing the number
of times the clause is evaluated, which is bad for volatile quals, and
possibly changing the result, since a volatile qual might succeed for some
SRF output rows and not others despite not referencing any of the changing
columns. (Indeed, if the clause is something like "random() > 0.5", the
user is probably expecting exactly that behavior.)
We had most of these restrictions down, but not the one about the upper
clause not being volatile. Fix that, and add a regression test to
illustrate the expected behavior.
Although this is definitely a bug, it doesn't seem like back-patch
material, since possibly some users don't realize that the broken
behavior is broken and are relying on what happens now. Also, while
the added test is quite cheap in the wake of commit a4c35ea1c, it would
be much more expensive (or else messier) in older branches.
Per report from Tom van Tilburg.
Discussion: <CAP3PPDiucxYCNev52=YPVkrQAPVF1C5PFWnrQPT7iMzO1fiKFQ@mail.gmail.com>
The newly added ON CONFLICT clause allows to specify an alternative to
raising a unique or exclusion constraint violation error when inserting.
ON CONFLICT refers to constraints that can either be specified using a
inference clause (by specifying the columns of a unique constraint) or
by naming a unique or exclusion constraint. DO NOTHING avoids the
constraint violation, without touching the pre-existing row. DO UPDATE
SET ... [WHERE ...] updates the pre-existing tuple, and has access to
both the tuple proposed for insertion and the existing tuple; the
optional WHERE clause can be used to prevent an update from being
executed. The UPDATE SET and WHERE clauses have access to the tuple
proposed for insertion using the "magic" EXCLUDED alias, and to the
pre-existing tuple using the table name or its alias.
This feature is often referred to as upsert.
This is implemented using a new infrastructure called "speculative
insertion". It is an optimistic variant of regular insertion that first
does a pre-check for existing tuples and then attempts an insert. If a
violating tuple was inserted concurrently, the speculatively inserted
tuple is deleted and a new attempt is made. If the pre-check finds a
matching tuple the alternative DO NOTHING or DO UPDATE action is taken.
If the insertion succeeds without detecting a conflict, the tuple is
deemed inserted.
To handle the possible ambiguity between the excluded alias and a table
named excluded, and for convenience with long relation names, INSERT
INTO now can alias its target table.
Bumps catversion as stored rules change.
Author: Peter Geoghegan, with significant contributions from Heikki
Linnakangas and Andres Freund. Testing infrastructure by Jeff Janes.
Reviewed-By: Heikki Linnakangas, Andres Freund, Robert Haas, Simon Riggs,
Dean Rasheed, Stephen Frost and many others.
The locution "EXISTS(SELECT ... LIMIT 1)" seems to be rather common among
people who don't realize that the database already performs optimizations
equivalent to putting LIMIT 1 in the sub-select. Unfortunately, this was
actually making things worse, because it prevented us from optimizing such
EXISTS clauses into semi or anti joins. Teach simplify_EXISTS_query() to
suppress constant-positive LIMIT clauses. That fixes the semi/anti-join
case, and may help marginally even for cases that have to be left as
sub-SELECTs.
Marti Raudsepp, reviewed by David Rowley
ExecEvalWholeRowVar incorrectly supposed that it could "bless" the source
TupleTableSlot just once per query. But if the input is coming from an
Append (or, perhaps, other cases?) more than one slot might be returned
over the query run. This led to "record type has not been registered"
errors when a composite datum was extracted from a non-blessed slot.
This bug has been there a long time; I guess it escaped notice because when
dealing with subqueries the planner tends to expand whole-row Vars into
RowExprs, which don't have the same problem. It is possible to trigger
the problem in all active branches, though, as illustrated by the added
regression test.
While the x output of "select x from t group by x" can be presumed unique,
this does not hold for "select x, generate_series(1,10) from t group by x",
because we may expand the set-returning function after the grouping step.
(Perhaps that should be re-thought; but considering all the other oddities
involved with SRFs in targetlists, it seems unlikely we'll change it.)
Put a check in query_is_distinct_for() so it's not fooled by such cases.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
David Rowley
A WHERE clause applied to the output of a subquery with DISTINCT should
theoretically be applied only once per distinct row; but if we push it
into the subquery then it will be evaluated at each row before duplicate
elimination occurs. If the qual is volatile this can give rise to
observably wrong results, so don't do that.
While at it, refactor a little bit to allow subquery_is_pushdown_safe
to report more than one kind of restrictive condition without indefinitely
expanding its argument list.
Although this is a bug fix, it seems unwise to back-patch it into released
branches, since it might de-optimize plans for queries that aren't giving
any trouble in practice. So apply to 9.4 but not further back.
An expression such as WHERE (... x IN (SELECT ...) ...) IN (SELECT ...)
could produce an invalid plan that results in a crash at execution time,
if the planner attempts to flatten the outer IN into a semi-join.
This happens because convert_testexpr() was not expecting any nested
SubLinks and would wrongly replace any PARAM_SUBLINK Params belonging
to the inner SubLink. (I think the comment denying that this case could
happen was wrong when written; it's certainly been wrong for quite a long
time, since very early versions of the semijoin flattening logic.)
Per report from Teodor Sigaev. Back-patch to all supported branches.
This change prevents us from doing inappropriate subquery flattening in
cases such as dangerous functions hidden inside a sub-SELECT in the
targetlist of another sub-SELECT. That could result in unexpected behavior
due to multiple evaluations of a volatile function, as in a recent
complaint from Etienne Dube. It's been questionable from the very
beginning whether these functions should look into subqueries (as noted in
their comments), and this case seems to provide proof that they should.
Because the new code only descends into SubLinks, not SubPlans or
InitPlans, the change only affects the planner's behavior during
prepjointree processing and not later on --- for example, you can still get
it to use a volatile function in an indexqual if you wrap the function in
(SELECT ...). That's a historical behavior, for sure, but it's reasonable
given that the executor's evaluation rules for subplans don't depend on
whether there are volatile functions inside them. In any case, we need to
constrain the behavioral change as narrowly as we can to make this
reasonable to back-patch.
Such cases should work, but the grammar failed to accept them because of
our ancient precedence hacks to convince bison that extra parentheses
around a sub-SELECT in an expression are unambiguous. (Formally, they
*are* ambiguous, but we don't especially care whether they're treated as
part of the sub-SELECT or part of the expression. Bison cares, though.)
Fix by adding a redundant-looking production for this case.
This is a fine example of why fixing shift/reduce conflicts via
precedence declarations is more dangerous than it looks: you can easily
cause the parser to reject cases that should work.
This has been wrong since commit 3db4056e22b0c6b2adc92543baf8408d2894fe91
or maybe before, and apparently some people have been working around it
by inserting no-op casts. That method introduces a dump/reload hazard,
as illustrated in bug #7838 from Jan Mate. Hence, back-patch to all
active branches.
When hashing a subplan like "WHERE (a, b) NOT IN (SELECT x, y FROM ...)",
findPartialMatch() attempted to match rows using the hashtable's internal
equality operators, which of course are for x and y's datatypes. What we
need to use are the potentially cross-type operators for a=x, b=y, etc.
Failure to do that leads to wrong answers or even crashes. The scope for
problems is limited to cases where we have different types with compatible
hash functions (else we'd not be using a hashed subplan), but for example
int4 vs int8 can cause the problem.
Per bug #7597 from Bo Jensen. This has been wrong since the hashed-subplan
code was written, so patch all the way back.
When a whole-row Var is reading the result of a subquery, we need it to
ignore any "resjunk" columns that the subquery might have evaluated for
GROUP BY or ORDER BY purposes. We've hacked this area before, in commit
68e40998d058c1f6662800a648ff1e1ce5d99cba, but that fix only covered
whole-row Vars of named composite types, not those of RECORD type; and it
was mighty klugy anyway, since it just assumed without checking that any
extra columns in the result must be resjunk. A proper fix requires getting
hold of the subquery's targetlist so we can actually see which columns are
resjunk (whereupon we can use a JunkFilter to get rid of them). So bite
the bullet and add some infrastructure to make that possible.
Per report from Andrew Dunstan and additional testing by Merlin Moncure.
Back-patch to all supported branches. In 8.3, also back-patch commit
292176a118da6979e5d368a4baf27f26896c99a5, which for some reason I had
not done at the time, but it's a prerequisite for this change.
When recursing after an optimization in pull_up_sublinks_qual_recurse, the
available_rels value passed down must include only the relations that are
in the righthand side of the new SEMI or ANTI join; it's incorrect to pull
up a sub-select that refers to other relations, as seen in the added test
case. Per report from BangarRaju Vadapalli.
While at it, rethink the idea of recursing below a NOT EXISTS. That is
essentially the same situation as pulling up ANY/EXISTS sub-selects that
are in the ON clause of an outer join, and it has the same disadvantage:
we'd force the two joins to be evaluated according to the syntactic nesting
order, because the lower join will most likely not be able to commute with
the ANTI join. That could result in having to form a rather large join
product, whereas the handling of a correlated subselect is not quite that
dumb. So until we can handle those cases better, #ifdef NOT_USED that
case. (I think it's okay to pull up in the EXISTS/ANY cases, because SEMI
joins aren't so inflexible about ordering.)
Back-patch to 8.4, same as for previous patch in this area. Fortunately
that patch hadn't made it into any shipped releases yet.
