This is still using the 2.0 version of pg_bsd_indent.
I thought it would be good to commit this separately,
so as to document the differences between 2.0 and 2.1 behavior.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16296.1558103386@sss.pgh.pa.us
Previously, the SERIALIZABLE isolation level prevented parallel query
from being used. Allow the two features to be used together by
sharing the leader's SERIALIZABLEXACT with parallel workers.
An extra per-SERIALIZABLEXACT LWLock is introduced to make it safe to
share, and new logic is introduced to coordinate the early release
of the SERIALIZABLEXACT required for the SXACT_FLAG_RO_SAFE
optimization, as follows:
The first backend to observe the SXACT_FLAG_RO_SAFE flag (set by
some other transaction) will 'partially release' the SERIALIZABLEXACT,
meaning that the conflicts and locks it holds are released, but the
SERIALIZABLEXACT itself will remain active because other backends
might still have a pointer to it.
Whenever any backend notices the SXACT_FLAG_RO_SAFE flag, it clears
its own MySerializableXact variable and frees local resources so that
it can skip SSI checks for the rest of the transaction. In the
special case of the leader process, it transfers the SERIALIZABLEXACT
to a new variable SavedSerializableXact, so that it can be completely
released at the end of the transaction after all workers have exited.
Remove the serializable_okay flag added to CreateParallelContext() by
commit 9da0cc35, because it's now redundant.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-by: Haribabu Kommi, Robert Haas, Masahiko Sawada, Kevin Grittner
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0gXGYhtrVDWOTHS8SQQy_=S9xo+8oCxGLWZAOoeJ=yzQ@mail.gmail.com
Create a new header optimizer/optimizer.h, which exposes just the
planner functions that can be used "at arm's length", without need
to access Paths or the other planner-internal data structures defined
in nodes/relation.h. This is intended to provide the whole planner
API seen by most of the rest of the system; although FDWs still need
to use additional stuff, and more thought is also needed about just
what selfuncs.c should rely on.
The main point of doing this now is to limit the amount of new
#include baggage that will be needed by "planner support functions",
which I expect to introduce later, and which will be in relevant
datatype modules rather than anywhere near the planner.
This commit just moves relevant declarations into optimizer.h from
other header files (a couple of which go away because everything
got moved), and adjusts #include lists to match. There's further
cleanup that could be done if we want to decide that some stuff
being exposed by optimizer.h doesn't belong in the planner at all,
but I'll leave that for another day.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11460.1548706639@sss.pgh.pa.us
In the wake of commit f2343653f, we no longer need some fields that
were used before to control executor lock acquisitions:
* PlannedStmt.nonleafResultRelations can go away entirely.
* partitioned_rels can go away from Append, MergeAppend, and ModifyTable.
However, ModifyTable still needs to know the RT index of the partition
root table if any, which was formerly kept in the first entry of that
list. Add a new field "rootRelation" to remember that. rootRelation is
partly redundant with nominalRelation, in that if it's set it will have
the same value as nominalRelation. However, the latter field has a
different purpose so it seems best to keep them distinct.
Amit Langote, reviewed by David Rowley and Jesper Pedersen,
and whacked around a bit more by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
I (Andres) was more than a bit hasty in committing 33001fd7a7
after last minute changes, leading to a number of problems (jit output
was only shown for JIT in parallel workers, and just EXPLAIN without
ANALYZE didn't work). Lukas luckily found these issues quickly.
Instead of combining instrumentation in in standard_ExecutorEnd(), do
so on demand in the new ExplainPrintJITSummary().
Also update a documentation example of the JIT output, changed in
52050ad8eb.
Author: Lukas Fittl, with minor changes by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAP53PkxmgJht69pabxBXJBM+0oc6kf3KHMborLP7H2ouJ0CCtQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 11, where JIT compilation was introduced
Previously, when using parallel query, EXPLAIN (ANALYZE)'s JIT
compilation timings did not include the overhead from doing so on the
workers. Fix that.
We do so by simply aggregating the cost of doing JIT compilation on
workers and the leader together. Arguably that's not quite accurate,
because the total time spend doing so is spent in parallel - but it's
hard to do much better. For additional detail, when VERBOSE is
specified, the stats for workers are displayed separately.
Author: Amit Khandekar and Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9eLrz51RK_gTkod+71iDcjpB_N8eC6vU2AW-VicsAERpQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 11-
The EvalPlanQual machinery assumes that any initplans (that is,
uncorrelated sub-selects) used during an EPQ recheck would have already
been evaluated during the main query; this is implicit in the fact that
execPlan pointers are not copied into the EPQ estate's es_param_exec_vals.
But it's possible for that assumption to fail, if the initplan is only
reached conditionally. For example, a sub-select inside a CASE expression
could be reached during a recheck when it had not been previously, if the
CASE test depends on a column that was just updated.
This bug is old, appearing to date back to my rewrite of EvalPlanQual in
commit 9f2ee8f28, but was not detected until Kyle Samson reported a case.
To fix, force all not-yet-evaluated initplans used within the EPQ plan
subtree to be evaluated at the start of the recheck, before entering the
EPQ environment. This could be inefficient, if such an initplan is
expensive and goes unused again during the recheck --- but that's piling
one layer of improbability atop another. It doesn't seem worth adding
more complexity to prevent that, at least not in the back branches.
It was convenient to use the new-in-v11 ExecEvalParamExecParams function
to implement this, but I didn't like either its name or the specifics of
its API, so revise that.
Back-patch all the way. Rather than rewrite the patch to avoid depending
on bms_next_member() in the oldest branches, I chose to back-patch that
function into 9.4 and 9.3. (This isn't the first time back-patches have
needed that, and it exhausted my patience.) I also chose to back-patch
some test cases added by commits 71404af2a and 342a1ffa2 into 9.4 and 9.3,
so that the 9.x versions of eval-plan-qual.spec are all the same.
Andrew Gierth diagnosed the problem and contributed the added test cases,
though the actual code changes are by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/A033A40A-B234-4324-BE37-272279F7B627@tripadvisor.com
In the leader backend, we don't track the buffer usage for ExecutorStart
phase whereas in worker backend we track it for ExecutorStart phase as
well. This leads to different value for buffer usage stats for the
parallel and non-parallel query. Change the code so that worker backend
also starts tracking buffer usage after ExecutorStart.
Author: Amit Kapila and Robert Haas
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas and Andres Freund
Backpatch-through: 9.6 where this code was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/86137f17-1dfb-42f9-7421-82fd786b04a1@anayrat.info
This adds simple cost based plan time decision about whether JIT
should be performed. jit_above_cost, jit_optimize_above_cost are
compared with the total cost of a plan, and if the cost is above them
JIT is performed / optimization is performed respectively.
For that PlannedStmt and EState have a jitFlags (es_jit_flags) field
that stores information about what JIT operations should be performed.
EState now also has a new es_jit field, which can store a
JitContext. When there are no errors the context is released in
standard_ExecutorEnd().
It is likely that the default values for jit_[optimize_]above_cost
will need to be adapted further, but in my test these values seem to
work reasonably.
Author: Andres Freund, with feedback by Peter Eisentraut
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de
To make this work, tuplesort.c and logtape.c must also support
parallelism, so this patch adds that infrastructure and then applies
it to the particular case of parallel btree index builds. Testing
to date shows that this can often be 2-3x faster than a serial
index build.
The model for deciding how many workers to use is fairly primitive
at present, but it's better than not having the feature. We can
refine it as we get more experience.
Peter Geoghegan with some help from Rushabh Lathia. While Heikki
Linnakangas is not an author of this patch, he wrote other patches
without which this feature would not have been possible, and
therefore the release notes should possibly credit him as an author
of this feature. Reviewed by Claudio Freire, Heikki Linnakangas,
Thomas Munro, Tels, Amit Kapila, me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAM3SWZQKM=Pzc=CAHzRixKjp2eO5Q0Jg1SoFQqeXFQ647JiwqQ@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=AxWqDoVvGU7dq856S4r6sJAj6DBn7VMtigkB33N5eyg@mail.gmail.com
Introduce parallel-aware hash joins that appear in EXPLAIN plans as Parallel
Hash Join with Parallel Hash. While hash joins could already appear in
parallel queries, they were previously always parallel-oblivious and had a
partial subplan only on the outer side, meaning that the work of the inner
subplan was duplicated in every worker.
After this commit, the planner will consider using a partial subplan on the
inner side too, using the Parallel Hash node to divide the work over the
available CPU cores and combine its results in shared memory. If the join
needs to be split into multiple batches in order to respect work_mem, then
workers process different batches as much as possible and then work together
on the remaining batches.
The advantages of a parallel-aware hash join over a parallel-oblivious hash
join used in a parallel query are that it:
* avoids wasting memory on duplicated hash tables
* avoids wasting disk space on duplicated batch files
* divides the work of building the hash table over the CPUs
One disadvantage is that there is some communication between the participating
CPUs which might outweigh the benefits of parallelism in the case of small
hash tables. This is avoided by the planner's existing reluctance to supply
partial plans for small scans, but it may be necessary to estimate
synchronization costs in future if that situation changes. Another is that
outer batch 0 must be written to disk if multiple batches are required.
A potential future advantage of parallel-aware hash joins is that right and
full outer joins could be supported, since there is a single set of matched
bits for each hashtable, but that is not yet implemented.
A new GUC enable_parallel_hash is defined to control the feature, defaulting
to on.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund, Robert Haas
Tested-By: Rafia Sabih, Prabhat Sahu
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2W=cOkiZxcg6qiFQP-dHUe09aqTrEMM7yJDrHMhDv_RA@mail.gmail.comhttps://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
When a Gather or Gather Merge node is started and stopped multiple
times, accumulate instrumentation data only once, at the end, instead
of after each execution, to avoid recording inflated totals.
Commit 778e78ae9f, the previous attempt
at a fix, instead reset the state after every execution, which worked
for the general instrumentation data but had problems for the additional
instrumentation specific to Sort and Hash nodes.
Report by hubert depesz lubaczewski. Analysis and fix by Amit Kapila,
following a design proposal from Thomas Munro, with a comment tweak
by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20171127175631.GA405@depesz.com
es_query_dsa turns out to be broken by design, because it supposes
that there is only one DSA for the whole query, whereas there is
actually one per Gather (Merge) node. For now, work around that
problem by setting and clearing the pointer around the sections of
code that might need it. It's probably a better idea to get rid of
es_query_dsa altogether in favor of having each node keep track
individually of which DSA is relevant, but that seems like more than
we would want to back-patch.
Thomas Munro, reviewed and tested by Andreas Seltenreich, Amit
Kapila, and by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=1U6as=brnVvMNixEV2tpi8NuyQoTmO8Qef0-VV+=7MDA@mail.gmail.com
When we create an Append node, we can spread out the workers over the
subplans instead of piling on to each subplan one at a time, which
should typically be a bit more efficient, both because the startup
cost of any plan executed entirely by one worker is paid only once and
also because of reduced contention. We can also construct Append
plans using a mix of partial and non-partial subplans, which may allow
for parallelism in places that otherwise couldn't support it.
Unfortunately, this patch doesn't handle the important case of
parallelizing UNION ALL by running each branch in a separate worker;
the executor infrastructure is added here, but more planner work is
needed.
Amit Khandekar, Robert Haas, Amul Sul, reviewed and tested by
Ashutosh Bapat, Amit Langote, Rafia Sabih, Amit Kapila, and
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9dy0K_E8r727heqXoBmWZ83HwLFwdcaSSmBQ1+S+vRuUQ@mail.gmail.com
When a Gather or Gather Merge node is started and stopped multiple
times, the old code wouldn't reset the shared state between executions,
potentially resulting in dramatically inflated instrumentation data
for nodes beneath it. (The per-worker instrumentation ended up OK,
I think, but the overall totals were inflated.)
Report by hubert depesz lubaczewski. Analysis and fix by Amit Kapila,
reviewed and tweaked a bit by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20171127175631.GA405@depesz.com
If a hash join appears in a parallel query, there may be no hash table
available for explain.c to inspect even though a hash table may have
been built in other processes. This could happen either because
parallel_leader_participation was set to off or because the leader
happened to hit the end of the outer relation immediately (even though
the complete relation is not empty) and decided not to build the hash
table.
Commit bf11e7ee introduced a way for workers to exchange
instrumentation via the DSM segment for Sort nodes even though they
are not parallel-aware. This commit does the same for Hash nodes, so
that explain.c has a way to find instrumentation data from an
arbitrary participant that actually built the hash table.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm%3D3DUQC2-z252N55eOcZBer6DPdM%3DFzrxH9dZc5vYLsjaA%40mail.gmail.com
Currently, there are no known consequences of this oversight, so no
back-patch. Several of the EXEC_FLAG_* constants aren't usable in
parallel mode anyway, and potential problems related to the presence
or absence of OIDs (see EXEC_FLAG_WITH_OIDS, EXEC_FLAG_WITHOUT_OIDS)
seem at present to be masked by the unconditional projection step
performed by Gather and Gather Merge. In general, however, it seems
important that all participants agree on the values of these flags,
which modify executor behavior globally, and a pending patch to skip
projection in Gather (Merge) would be outright broken in certain cases
without this fix.
Patch by me, based on investigation of a test case provided by Amit
Kapila. This patch was also reviewed by Amit Kapila.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZ0ZL=cesZFq8c9NnfK6bqy-wwUd3_74iYGodYrSoQ7Fw@mail.gmail.com
Previously, executor nodes running in parallel worker processes didn't
have access to the dsm_segment object used for parallel execution. In
order to support resource management based on DSM segment lifetime,
they need that. So create a ParallelWorkerContext object to hold it
and pass it to all InitializeWorker functions.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2W=cOkiZxcg6qiFQP-dHUe09aqTrEMM7yJDrHMhDv_RA@mail.gmail.com
If a PARAM_EXEC parameter is used below a Gather (Merge) but the InitPlan
that computes it is attached to or above the Gather (Merge), force the
value to be computed before starting parallelism and pass it down to all
workers. This allows us to use parallelism in cases where it previously
would have had to be rejected as unsafe. We do - in this case - lose the
optimization that the value is only computed if it's actually used. An
alternative strategy would be to have the first worker that needs the value
compute it, but one downside of that approach is that we'd then need to
select a parallel-safe path to compute the parameter value; it couldn't for
example contain a Gather (Merge) node. At some point in the future, we
might want to consider both approaches.
Independent of that consideration, there is a great deal more work that
could be done to make more kinds of PARAM_EXEC parameters parallel-safe.
This infrastructure could be used to allow a Gather (Merge) on the inner
side of a nested loop (although that's not a very appealing plan) and
cases where the InitPlan is attached below the Gather (Merge) could be
addressed as well using various techniques. But this is a good start.
Amit Kapila, reviewed and revised by me. Reviewing and testing from
Kuntal Ghosh, Haribabu Kommi, and Tushar Ahuja.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1LV0Y1AUV4cUCdC+sYOx0Z0-8NAJ2Pd9=UKsbQ5Sr7+JQ@mail.gmail.com
Up until now, we only tracked the number of parameters, which was
sufficient to allocate an array of Datums of the appropriate size,
but not sufficient to, for example, know how to serialize a Datum
stored in one of those slots. An upcoming patch wants to do that,
so add this tracking to make it possible.
Patch by me, reviewed by Tom Lane and Amit Kapila.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYqpxDKn8koHdW8BEKk8FMUL0=e8m2Qe=M+r0UBjr3tuQ@mail.gmail.com
This takes advantage of the infrastructure introduced by commit
81c5e46c49 to greatly reduce the
likelihood that two different queries will end up with the same query
ID. It's still possible, of course, but whereas before it the chances
of a collision reached 25% around 50,000 queries, it will now take
more than 3 billion queries.
Backward incompatibility: Because the type exposed at the SQL level is
int8, users may now see negative query IDs in the pg_stat_statements
view (and also, query IDs more than 4 billion, which was the old
limit).
Patch by me, reviewed by Michael Paquier and Peter Geoghegan.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobG_Kp4cBKFmsznUAaM1GWW6hhRNiZC0KjRMOOeYnz5Yw@mail.gmail.com
It is equivalent in ANSI C to write (*funcptr) () and funcptr(). These
two styles have been applied inconsistently. After discussion, we'll
use the more verbose style for plain function pointer variables, to make
it clear that it's a variable, and the shorter style when the function
pointer is in a struct (s.func() or s->func()), because then it's clear
that it's not a plain function name, and otherwise the excessive
punctuation makes some of those invocations hard to read.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f52c16db-14ed-757d-4b48-7ef360b1631d@2ndquadrant.com
Move the responsibility for creating/destroying TupleQueueReaders into
execParallel.c, to avoid duplicative coding in nodeGather.c and
nodeGatherMerge.c. Also, instead of having DestroyTupleQueueReader do
shm_mq_detach, do it in the caller (which is now only ExecParallelFinish).
This means execParallel.c does both the attaching and detaching of the
tuple-queue-reader shm_mqs, which seems less weird than the previous
arrangement.
These changes also eliminate a vestigial memory leak (of the pei->tqueue
array). It's now demonstrable that rescans of Gather or GatherMerge don't
leak memory.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8670.1504192177@sss.pgh.pa.us
Previously, the parallel executor logic did reinitialization of shared
state within the ExecReScan code for parallel-aware scan nodes. This is
problematic, because it means that the ExecReScan call has to occur
synchronously (ie, during the parent Gather node's ReScan call). That is
swimming very much against the tide so far as the ExecReScan machinery is
concerned; the fact that it works at all today depends on a lot of fragile
assumptions, such as that no plan node between Gather and a parallel-aware
scan node is parameterized. Another objection is that because ExecReScan
might be called in workers as well as the leader, hacky extra tests are
needed in some places to prevent unwanted shared-state resets.
Hence, let's separate this code into two functions, a ReInitializeDSM
call and the ReScan call proper. ReInitializeDSM is called only in
the leader and is guaranteed to run before we start new workers.
ReScan is returned to its traditional function of resetting only local
state, which means that ExecReScan's usual habits of delaying or
eliminating child rescan calls are safe again.
As with the preceding commit 7df2c1f8d, it doesn't seem to be necessary
to make these changes in 9.6, which is a good thing because the FDW and
CustomScan APIs are impacted.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
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 1177ab1dab forced the test case
added by commit 1f6d515a67 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
If we only need, say, 10 tuples in total, then we certainly don't need
more than 10 tuples from any single process. Pushing down the limit
lets workers exit early when possible. For Gather Merge, there is
an additional benefit: a Sort immediately below the Gather Merge can
be done as a bounded sort if there is an applicable limit.
Robert Haas and Tom Lane
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYa3QKKrLj5rX7UvGqhH73G1Li4B-EKxrmASaca2tFu9Q@mail.gmail.com
Don't move parenthesized lines to the left, even if that means they
flow past the right margin.
By default, BSD indent lines up statement continuation lines that are
within parentheses so that they start just to the right of the preceding
left parenthesis. However, traditionally, if that resulted in the
continuation line extending to the right of the desired right margin,
then indent would push it left just far enough to not overrun the margin,
if it could do so without making the continuation line start to the left of
the current statement indent. That makes for a weird mix of indentations
unless one has been completely rigid about never violating the 80-column
limit.
This behavior has been pretty universally panned by Postgres developers.
Hence, disable it with indent's new -lpl switch, so that parenthesized
lines are always lined up with the preceding left paren.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
Given the possibility of race conditions and so on, it seems entirely
unsafe to just assume that shm_toc_lookup() always finds the key it's
looking for --- but that was exactly what all but one call site were
doing. To fix, add a "bool noError" argument, similarly to what we
have in many other functions, and throw an error on an unexpected
lookup failure. Remove now-redundant Asserts that a rather random
subset of call sites had.
I doubt this will throw any light on buildfarm member lorikeet's
recent failures, because if an unnoticed lookup failure were involved,
you'd kind of expect a null-pointer-dereference crash rather than the
observed symptom. But you never know ... and this is better coding
practice even if it never catches anything.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9697.1496675981@sss.pgh.pa.us
We'd already recognized that we can't pass function pointers across process
boundaries for functions in loadable modules, since a shared library could
get loaded at different addresses in different processes. But actually the
practice doesn't work for functions in the core backend either, if we're
using EXEC_BACKEND. This is the cause of recent failures on buildfarm
member culicidae. Switch to passing a string function name in all cases.
Something like this needs to be back-patched into 9.6, but let's see
if the buildfarm likes it first.
Petr Jelinek, with a bunch of basically-cosmetic adjustments by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/548f9c1d-eafa-e3fa-9da8-f0cc2f654e60@2ndquadrant.com
Commit 5e6d8d2bb allowed parallel workers to execute parallel-safe
subplans, but it transmitted the query's entire list of subplans to
the worker(s). Since execMain.c blindly does ExecInitNode and later
ExecEndNode on every list element, this resulted in parallel-unsafe plan
nodes nonetheless getting started up and shut down in parallel workers.
That seems mostly harmless as far as core plan node types go (but
maybe not so much for Gather?). But it resulted in postgres_fdw
opening and then closing extra remote connections, and it's likely
that other non-parallel-safe FDWs or custom scan providers would have
worse reactions.
To fix, just make ExecSerializePlan replace parallel-unsafe subplans
with NULLs in the cut-down plan tree that it transmits to workers.
This relies on ExecInitNode and ExecEndNode to do nothing on NULL
input, but they do anyway. If anything else is touching the dropped
subplans in a parallel worker, that would be a bug to be fixed.
(This thus provides a strong guarantee that we won't try to do
something with a parallel-unsafe subplan in a worker.)
This is, I think, the last fix directly occasioned by Andreas Seltenreich's
bug report of a few days ago.
Tom Lane and Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87tw5x4vcu.fsf@credativ.de
A QueryEnvironment concept is added, which allows new types of
objects to be passed into queries from parsing on through
execution. At this point, the only thing implemented is a
collection of EphemeralNamedRelation objects -- relations which
can be referenced by name in queries, but do not exist in the
catalogs. The only type of ENR implemented is NamedTuplestore, but
provision is made to add more types fairly easily.
An ENR can carry its own TupleDesc or reference a relation in the
catalogs by relid.
Although these features can be used without SPI, convenience
functions are added to SPI so that ENRs can easily be used by code
run through SPI.
The initial use of all this is going to be transition tables in
AFTER triggers, but that will be added to each PL as a separate
commit.
An incidental effect of this patch is to produce a more informative
error message if an attempt is made to modify the contents of a CTE
from a referencing DML statement. No tests previously covered that
possibility, so one is added.
Kevin Grittner and Thomas Munro
Reviewed by Heikki Linnakangas, David Fetter, and Thomas Munro
with valuable comments and suggestions from many others
Previously, it was unsafe to execute a plan in parallel if
ExecutorRun() might be called with a non-zero row count. However,
it's quite easy to fix things up so that we can support that case,
provided that it is known that we will never call ExecutorRun() a
second time for the same QueryDesc. Add infrastructure to signal
this, and cross-checks to make sure that a caller who claims this is
true doesn't later reneg.
While that pattern never happens with queries received directly from a
client -- there's no way to know whether multiple Execute messages
will be sent unless the first one requests all the rows -- it's pretty
common for queries originating from procedural languages, which often
limit the result to a single tuple or to a user-specified number of
tuples.
This commit doesn't actually enable parallelism in any additional
cases, because currently none of the places that would be able to
benefit from this infrastructure pass CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK in the
first place, but it makes it much more palatable to pass
CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK in places where we currently don't, because it
eliminates some cases where we'd end up having to run the parallel
plan serially.
Patch by me, based on some ideas from Rafia Sabih and corrected by
Rafia Sabih based on feedback from Dilip Kumar and myself.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobXEhvHbJtWDuPZM9bVSLiTj-kShxQJ2uM5GPDze9fRYA@mail.gmail.com
Partitioned tables do not contain any data; only their unpartitioned
descendents need to be scanned. However, the partitioned tables still
need to be locked, even though they're not scanned. To make that
work, Append and MergeAppend relations now need to carry a list of
(unscanned) partitioned relations that must be locked, and InitPlan
must lock all partitioned result relations.
Aside from the obvious advantage of avoiding some work at execution
time, this has two other advantages. First, it may improve the
planner's decision-making in some cases since the empty relation
might throw things off. Second, it paves the way to getting rid of
the storage for partitioned tables altogether.
Amit Langote, reviewed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/6837c359-45c4-8044-34d1-736756335a15@lab.ntt.co.jp
The index is scanned by a single process, but then all cooperating
processes can iterate jointly over the resulting set of heap blocks.
In the future, we might also want to support using a parallel bitmap
index scan to set up for a parallel bitmap heap scan, but that's a
job for another day.
Dilip Kumar, with some corrections and cosmetic changes by me. The
larger patch set of which this is a part has been reviewed and tested
by (at least) Andres Freund, Amit Khandekar, Tushar Ahuja, Rafia
Sabih, Haribabu Kommi, Thomas Munro, and me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFiTN-uc4=0WxRGfCzs-xfkMYcSEWUC-Fon6thkJGjkh9i=13A@mail.gmail.com
With this change, you can see the query that a parallel worker is
executing in pg_stat_activity, and if the worker crashes you can
see what query it was executing when it crashed.
Rafia Sabih, reviewed by Kuntal Ghosh and Amit Kapila and slightly
revised by me.
Commit 5262f7a4fc added similar support
for parallel index scans; this extends that work to index-only scans.
As with parallel index scans, this requires support from the index AM,
so currently parallel index-only scans will only be possible for btree
indexes.
Rafia Sabih, reviewed and tested by Rahila Syed, Tushar Ahuja,
and Amit Kapila
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOGQiiPEAs4C=TBp0XShxBvnWXuzGL2u++Hm1=qnCpd6_Mf8Fw@mail.gmail.com
In combination with 569174f1be, which
taught the btree AM how to perform parallel index scans, this allows
parallel index scan plans on btree indexes. This infrastructure
should be general enough to support parallel index scans for other
index AMs as well, if someone updates them to support parallel
scans.
Amit Kapila, reviewed and tested by Anastasia Lubennikova, Tushar
Ahuja, and Haribabu Kommi, and me.
This doesn't do anything to make Param nodes anything other than
parallel-restricted, so this only helps with uncorrelated subplans,
and it's not necessarily very cheap because each worker will run the
subplan separately (just as a Hash Join will build a separate copy of
the hash table in each participating process), but it's a first step
toward supporting cases that are more likely to help in practice, and
is occasionally useful on its own.
Amit Kapila, reviewed and tested by Rafia Sabih, Dilip Kumar, and
me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+e8Z45D2n+rnDMDYsVEb5iW7jqaCH_tvPMYau=1Rru9w@mail.gmail.com
Amit Kapila