| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Backpatch-through: 13
|
|
as determined by include-what-you-use (IWYU)
While IWYU also suggests to *add* a bunch of #include's (which is its
main purpose), this patch does not do that. In some cases, a more
specific #include replaces another less specific one.
Some manual adjustments of the automatic result:
- IWYU currently doesn't know about includes that provide global
variable declarations (like -Wmissing-variable-declarations), so
those includes are being kept manually.
- All includes for port(ability) headers are being kept for now, to
play it safe.
- No changes of catalog/pg_foo.h to catalog/pg_foo_d.h, to keep the
patch from exploding in size.
Note that this patch touches just *.c files, so nothing declared in
header files changes in hidden ways.
As a small example, in src/backend/access/transam/rmgr.c, some IWYU
pragma annotations are added to handle a special case there.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/af837490-6b2f-46df-ba05-37ea6a6653fc%40eisentraut.org
|
|
Reported-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
Backpatch-through: 12
|
|
This commit removes unnecessary ExecExprFreeContext() calls in
ExecEnd* routines because the actual cleanup is managed by
FreeExecutorState(). With no callers remaining for
ExecExprFreeContext(), this commit also removes the function.
This commit also drops redundant ExecClearTuple() calls, because
ExecResetTupleTable() in ExecEndPlan() already takes care of
resetting and dropping all TupleTableSlots initialized with
ExecInitScanTupleSlot() and ExecInitExtraTupleSlot().
After these modifications, the ExecEnd*() routines for ValuesScan,
NamedTuplestoreScan, and WorkTableScan became redundant. So, this
commit removes them.
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqFGkMSge6TgC9KQzde0ohpAycLQuV7ooitEEpbKB0O_mg@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Backpatch-through: 11
|
|
Backpatch-through: 10
|
|
Backpatch-through: 9.5
|
|
Backpatch-through: update all files in master, backpatch legal files through 9.4
|
|
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
|
|
Upcoming work intends to allow pluggable ways to introduce new ways of
storing table data. Accessing those table access methods from the
executor requires TupleTableSlots to be carry tuples in the native
format of such storage methods; otherwise there'll be a significant
conversion overhead.
Different access methods will require different data to store tuples
efficiently (just like virtual, minimal, heap already require fields
in TupleTableSlot). To allow that without requiring additional pointer
indirections, we want to have different structs (embedding
TupleTableSlot) for different types of slots. Thus different types of
slots are needed, which requires adapting creators of slots.
The slot that most efficiently can represent a type of tuple in an
executor node will often depend on the type of slot a child node
uses. Therefore we need to track the type of slot is returned by
nodes, so parent slots can create slots based on that.
Relatedly, JIT compilation of tuple deforming needs to know which type
of slot a certain expression refers to, so it can create an
appropriate deforming function for the type of tuple in the slot.
But not all nodes will only return one type of slot, e.g. an append
node will potentially return different types of slots for each of its
subplans.
Therefore add function that allows to query the type of a node's
result slot, and whether it'll always be the same type (whether it's
fixed). This can be queried using ExecGetResultSlotOps().
The scan, result, inner, outer type of slots are automatically
inferred from ExecInitScanTupleSlot(), ExecInitResultSlot(),
left/right subtrees respectively. If that's not correct for a node,
that can be overwritten using new fields in PlanState.
This commit does not introduce the actually abstracted implementation
of different kind of TupleTableSlots, that will be left for a followup
commit. The different types of slots introduced will, for now, still
use the same backing implementation.
While this already partially invalidates the big comment in
tuptable.h, it seems to make more sense to update it later, when the
different TupleTableSlot implementations actually exist.
Author: Ashutosh Bapat and Andres Freund, with changes by Amit Khandekar
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
In a lot of nodes the return slot is not required. That can either be
because the node doesn't do any projection (say an Append node), or
because the node does perform projections but the projection is
optimized away because the projection would yield an identical row.
Slots aren't that small, especially for wide rows, so it's worthwhile
to avoid creating them. It's not possible to just skip creating the
slot - it's currently used to determine the tuple descriptor returned
by ExecGetResultType(). So separate the determination of the result
type from the slot creation. The work previously done internally
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() can now also be done separately with
ExecInitResultTypeTL() and ExecInitResultSlot(). That way nodes that
aren't guaranteed to need a result slot, can use
ExecInitResultTypeTL() to determine the result type of the node, and
ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo() (via
ExecConditionalAssignProjectionInfo()) determines that a result slot
is needed, it is created with ExecInitResultSlot().
Besides the advantage of avoiding to create slots that then are
unused, this is necessary preparation for later patches around tuple
table slot abstraction. In particular separating the return descriptor
and slot is a prerequisite to allow JITing of tuple deforming with
knowledge of the underlying tuple format, and to avoid unnecessarily
creating JITed tuple deforming for virtual slots.
This commit removes a redundant argument from
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL(). While this commit touches a lot of the
relevant lines anyway, it'd normally still not worthwhile to cause
breakage, except that aforementioned later commits will touch *all*
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() callers anyway (but fits worse
thematically).
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
An updating query that reads a CTE within an InitPlan or SubPlan could get
incorrect results if it updates rows that are concurrently being modified.
This is caused by CteScanNext supposing that nothing inside its recursive
ExecProcNode call could change which read pointer is selected in the CTE's
shared tuplestore. While that's normally true because of scoping
considerations, it can break down if an EPQ plan tree gets built during the
call, because EvalPlanQualStart builds execution trees for all subplans
whether they're going to be used during the recheck or not. And it seems
like a pretty shaky assumption anyway, so let's just reselect our own read
pointer here.
Per bug #14870 from Andrei Gorita. This has been broken since CTEs were
implemented, so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
The reason for doing so is that it will allow expression evaluation to
optimize based on the underlying tupledesc. In particular it will
allow to JIT tuple deforming together with the expression itself.
For that expression initialization needs to be moved after the
relevant slots are initialized - mostly unproblematic, except in the
case of nodeWorktablescan.c.
After doing so there's no need for ExecAssignResultType() and
ExecAssignResultTypeFromTL() anymore, as all former callers have been
converted to create a slot with a fixed descriptor.
When creating a slot with a fixed descriptor, tts_values/isnull can be
allocated together with the main slot, reducing allocation overhead
and increasing cache density a bit.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3
|
|
This allows us to add stack-depth checks the first time an executor
node is called, and skip that overhead on following
calls. Additionally it yields a nice speedup.
While it'd probably have been a good idea to have that check all
along, it has become more important after the new expression
evaluation framework in b8d7f053c5c2bf2a7e - there's no stack depth
check in common paths anymore now. We previously relied on
ExecEvalExpr() being executed somewhere.
We should move towards that model for further routines, but as this is
required for v10, it seems better to only do the necessary (which
already is quite large).
Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane
Reported-By: Julien Rouhaud
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
This replaces the old, recursive tree-walk based evaluation, with
non-recursive, opcode dispatch based, expression evaluation.
Projection is now implemented as part of expression evaluation.
This both leads to significant performance improvements, and makes
future just-in-time compilation of expressions easier.
The speed gains primarily come from:
- non-recursive implementation reduces stack usage / overhead
- simple sub-expressions are implemented with a single jump, without
function calls
- sharing some state between different sub-expressions
- reduced amount of indirect/hard to predict memory accesses by laying
out operation metadata sequentially; including the avoidance of
nearly all of the previously used linked lists
- more code has been moved to expression initialization, avoiding
constant re-checks at evaluation time
Future just-in-time compilation (JIT) has become easier, as
demonstrated by released patches intended to be merged in a later
release, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, due to a stricter split
between expression initialization and evaluation, less code has to be
handled by the JIT. Secondly, due to the non-recursive nature of the
generated "instructions", less performance-critical code-paths can
easily be shared between interpreted and compiled evaluation.
The new framework allows for significant future optimizations. E.g.:
- basic infrastructure for to later reduce the per executor-startup
overhead of expression evaluation, by caching state in prepared
statements. That'd be helpful in OLTPish scenarios where
initialization overhead is measurable.
- optimizing the generated "code". A number of proposals for potential
work has already been made.
- optimizing the interpreter. Similarly a number of proposals have
been made here too.
The move of logic into the expression initialization step leads to some
backward-incompatible changes:
- Function permission checks are now done during expression
initialization, whereas previously they were done during
execution. In edge cases this can lead to errors being raised that
previously wouldn't have been, e.g. a NULL array being coerced to a
different array type previously didn't perform checks.
- The set of domain constraints to be checked, is now evaluated once
during expression initialization, previously it was re-built
every time a domain check was evaluated. For normal queries this
doesn't change much, but e.g. for plpgsql functions, which caches
ExprStates, the old set could stick around longer. The behavior
around might still change.
Author: Andres Freund, with significant changes by Tom Lane,
changes by Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
This is far from a pervasive conversion, but it's a good starting
point.
Author: Peter Eisentraut, with some minor changes by me
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
Since 69f4b9c plain expression evaluation (and thus normal projection)
can't return sets of tuples anymore. Thus remove code dealing with
that possibility.
This will require adjustments in external code using
ExecEvalExpr()/ExecProject() - that should neither be hard nor very
common.
Author: Andres Freund and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
|
|
ExecInitCteScan supposed that it didn't have to do anything to the extra
tuplestore read pointer it gets from tuplestore_alloc_read_pointer.
However, it needs this read pointer to be positioned at the start of the
tuplestore, while tuplestore_alloc_read_pointer is actually defined as
cloning the current position of read pointer 0. In normal situations
that accidentally works because we initialize the whole plan tree at once,
before anything gets read. But it fails in an EvalPlanQual recheck, as
illustrated in bug #14328 from Dima Pavlov. To fix, just forcibly rewind
the pointer after tuplestore_alloc_read_pointer. The cost of doing so is
negligible unless the tuplestore is already in TSS_READFILE state, which
wouldn't happen in normal cases. We could consider altering tuplestore's
API to make that case cheaper, but that would make for a more invasive
back-patch and it doesn't seem worth it.
This has been broken probably for as long as we've had CTEs, so back-patch
to all supported branches.
Discussion: <[email protected]>
|
|
Backpatch certain files through 9.1
|
|
Backpatch certain files through 9.0
|
|
Update all files in head, and files COPYRIGHT and legal.sgml in all back
branches.
|
|
Fully update git head, and update back branches in ./COPYRIGHT and
legal.sgml files.
|
|
The previous coding essentially assumed that nodes would be rescanned in
the same order they were initialized in; or at least that the "leader" of
a group of CTEscans would be rescanned before any others were required to
execute. Unfortunately, that isn't even a little bit true. It's possible
to devise queries in which the leader isn't rescanned until other CTEscans
on the same CTE have run to completion, or even in which the leader never
gets a rescan call at all.
The fix makes the leader specially responsible only for initial creation
and final destruction of the tuplestore; rescan resets are now a
symmetrically shared responsibility. This means that we might reset the
tuplestore multiple times when restarting a plan subtree containing
multiple CTEscans; but resetting an already-empty tuplestore is cheap
enough that that doesn't seem like a problem.
Per report from Adam Mackler; the new regression test cases are based on
his example query.
Back-patch to 8.4 where CTE scans were introduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
