Add support for non-decimal integer literals and underscores in
numeric literals to SQL JSON path language. This follows the rules of
ECMAScript, as referred to by the SQL standard.
Internally, all the numeric literal parsing of jsonpath goes through
numeric_in, which already supports all this, so this patch is just a
bit of lexer work and some tests and documentation.
Reviewed-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/b11b25bb-6ec1-d42f-cedd-311eae59e1fb@enterprisedb.com
Beginning in v15, if you apply ALTER TABLE ENABLE/DISABLE TRIGGER to
a partitioned table, it also affects the partitions' cloned versions
of the affected trigger(s). The initial implementation of this
located the clones by name, but that fails on foreign-key triggers
which have names incorporating their own OIDs. We can fix that, and
also make the behavior more bulletproof in the face of user-initiated
trigger renames, by identifying the cloned triggers by tgparentid.
Following the lead of earlier commits in this area, I took care not
to break ABI in the v15 branch, even though I rather doubt there
are any external callers of EnableDisableTrigger.
While here, update the documentation, which was not touched when
the semantics were changed.
Per bug #17817 from Alan Hodgson. Back-patch to v15; older versions
do not have this behavior.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17817-31dfb7c2100d9f3d@postgresql.org
Our previous habit of showing the full function body is really
pretty unfriendly for tabular viewing of functions, and now that
we have \sf and \ef commands there seems no good reason why \df+
has to do it. It still seems to make sense to show prosrc for
internal and C-language functions, since in those cases prosrc
is just the C function name; but then let's rename the column to
"Internal name" which is a more accurate descriptor.
Isaac Morland
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMsGm5eqKc6J1=Lwn=ZONG=6ZDYWRQ4cgZQLqMuZGB1aVt_JBg@mail.gmail.com
This is usually harmless, but if you were very unlucky it could
provoke a segfault due to the "to" string being right up against
the end of memory. Found via valgrind testing (so we might've
found it earlier, except that our regression tests lacked any
exercise of translate()'s deletion feature).
Fix by switching the order of the test-for-end-of-string and
advance-pointer steps. While here, compute "to_ptr + tolen"
just once. (Smarter compilers might figure that out for
themselves, but let's just make sure.)
Report and fix by Daniil Anisimov, in bug #17816.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17816-70f3d2764e88a108@postgresql.org
pg_input_error_info() is now a SQL function able to return a row with
more than just the error message generated for incorrect data type
inputs when these are able to handle soft failures, returning more
contents of ErrorData, as of:
- The error message (same as before).
- The error detail, if set.
- The error hint, if set.
- SQL error code.
All the regression tests that relied on pg_input_error_message() are
updated to reflect the effects of the rename.
Per discussion with Tom Lane and Andrew Dunstan.
Author: Nathan Bossart
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/139a68e1-bd1f-a9a7-b5fe-0be9845c6311@dunslane.net
We already tried to fix this in commits 3f7323cbb et al (and follow-on
fixes), but now it emerges that there are still unfixed cases;
moreover, these cases affect all branches not only pre-v14. I thought
we had eliminated all cases of making multiple clones of an UPDATE's
target list when we nuked inheritance_planner. But it turns out we
still do that in some partitioned-UPDATE cases, notably including
INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE, because ExecInitPartitionInfo thinks
it's okay to clone and modify the parent's targetlist.
This fix is based on a suggestion from Andres Freund: let's stop
abusing the ParamExecData.execPlan mechanism, which was only ever
meant to handle initplans, and instead solve the execution timing
problem by having the expression compiler move MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK steps
to the front of their expression step lists. This is feasible because
(a) all branches still in support compile the entire targetlist of
an UPDATE into a single ExprState, and (b) we know that all
MULTIEXPR_SUBLINKs do need to be evaluated --- none could be buried
inside a CASE, for example. There is a minor semantics change
concerning the order of execution of the MULTIEXPR's subquery versus
other parts of the parent targetlist, but that seems like something
we can get away with. By doing that, we no longer need to worry
about whether different clones of a MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK share output
Params; their usage of that data structure won't overlap.
Per bug #17800 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to all supported
branches. In v13 and earlier, we can revert 3f7323cbb and follow-on
fixes; however, I chose to keep the SubPlan.subLinkId field added
in ccbb54c72. We don't need that anymore in the core code, but it's
cheap enough to fill, and removing a plan node field in a minor
release seems like it'd be asking for trouble.
Andres Freund and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17800-ff90866b3906c964@postgresql.org
If a rule action contains a subquery that refers to columns from OLD
or NEW, then those are really lateral references, and the planner will
complain if it sees such things in a subquery that isn't marked as
lateral. However, at rule-definition time, the user isn't required to
mark the subquery with LATERAL, and so it can fail when the rule is
used.
Fix this by marking such subqueries as lateral in the rewriter, at the
point where they're used.
Dean Rasheed and Tom Lane, per report from Alexander Lakhin.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5e09da43-aaba-7ea7-0a51-a2eb981b058b%40gmail.com
A unique index which is created with non-distinct NULLS cannot be
used for backing a primary key constraint. Make sure to disallow
such table alterations and teach pg_dump to drop the non-distinct
NULLS clause on indexes where this has been set.
Bug: 17720
Reported-by: Reiner Peterke <zedaardv@drizzle.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17720-dab8ee0fa85d316d@postgresql.org
It's possible, in admittedly-rather-contrived cases, for an eclass
to generate a derived "join" qual that constrains the post-outer-join
value(s) of some RHS variable(s) without mentioning the LHS at all.
While the mechanisms were set up to work for this, we fell foul of
the "get_common_eclass_indexes" filter installed by commit 3373c7155:
it could decide that such an eclass wasn't relevant to the join, so
that the required qual clause wouldn't get emitted there or anywhere
else.
To fix, apply get_common_eclass_indexes only at inner joins, where
its rule is still valid. At an outer join, fall back to examining all
eclasses that mention either input (or the OJ relid, though it should
be impossible for an eclass to mention that without mentioning either
input). Perhaps we can improve on that later, but the cost/benefit of
adding more complexity to skip some irrelevant eclasses is dubious.
To allow cheaply distinguishing outer from inner joins, pass the
ojrelid to generate_join_implied_equalities as a separate argument.
This also allows cleaning up some sloppiness that had crept into
the definition of its join_relids argument, and it allows accurate
calculation of nominal_join_relids for a child outer join. (The
latter oversight seems not to have been a live bug, but it certainly
could have caused problems in future.)
Also fix what might be a live bug in check_index_predicates: it was
being sloppy about what it passed to generate_join_implied_equalities.
Per report from Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-DsTBfOvXuw64GdFss2=M5cwtEhY=0DCS7t2gT7P6hSA@mail.gmail.com
Given an updatable view with a DO ALSO INSERT ... SELECT rule, a
multi-row INSERT ... VALUES query on the view fails if the VALUES list
contains any DEFAULTs that are not replaced by view defaults. This
manifests as an "unrecognized node type" error, or an Assert failure,
in an assert-enabled build.
The reason is that when RewriteQuery() attempts to replace the
remaining DEFAULT items with NULLs in any product queries, using
rewriteValuesRTEToNulls(), it assumes that the VALUES RTE is located
at the same rangetable index in each product query. However, if the
product query is an INSERT ... SELECT, then the VALUES RTE is actually
in the SELECT part of that query (at the same index), rather than the
top-level product query itself.
Fix, by descending to the SELECT in such cases. Note that we can't
simply use getInsertSelectQuery() for this, since that expects to be
given a raw rule action with OLD and NEW placeholder entries, so we
duplicate its logic instead.
While at it, beef up the checks in getInsertSelectQuery() by checking
that the jointree->fromlist node is indeed a RangeTblRef, and that the
RTE it points to has rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY.
Per bug #17803, from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Tom Lane.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17803-53c63ed4ecb4eac6%40postgresql.org
initsplan.c figured that it could push Var-free qual clauses to
the top of the current JoinDomain, which is okay in the abstract.
But if the current domain is inside some outer join, and we later
commute an inside-the-domain outer join with one outside it,
we end up placing the pushed-up qual clause incorrectly.
In distribute_qual_to_rels, avoid this by using the syntactic scope
of the qual clause; with the exception that if we're in the top-level
join domain we can still use the full query relid set, ensuring the
resulting gating Result node goes to the top of the plan. (This is
approximately as smart as the pre-v16 code was. Perhaps we can do
better later, but it's not clear that such cases are worth a lot of
sweat.)
In process_implied_equality, we don't have a clear notion of syntactic
scope, but we do have the results of SpecialJoinInfo construction.
Thumb through those and remove any lower outer joins that might get
commuted to above the join domain. Again, we can make an exception
for the top-level join domain. It'd be possible to work harder here
(for example, by keeping outer joins that aren't shown as potentially
commutable), but I'm going to stop here for the moment. This issue
has convinced me that the current representation of join domains
probably needs further refinement, so I'm disinclined to write
inessential dependent logic just yet.
In passing, tighten the qualscope passed to process_implied_equality
by generate_base_implied_equalities_no_const; there's no need for
it to be larger than the rel we are currently considering.
Tom Lane and Richard Guo, per report from Tender Wang.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHewXNk9eJ35ru5xATWioTV4+xZPHptjy9etdcNPjUfY9RQ+uQ@mail.gmail.com
In ExecInitPartitionInfo(), the Assert when building the WITH CHECK
OPTION list for the new partition assumed that the command would be an
INSERT or UPDATE, but it can also be a MERGE. This can be triggered by
a MERGE into a partitioned table with RLS checks to enforce.
Fix, and back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWWFtQmW67F3XTyMU5Am10Oxa_b8oe0x%2BNu5Mo%2BCdRErg%40mail.gmail.com
This ensures that the row count in the command tag for a MERGE is
correctly computed. Previously, if MERGE updated a partitioned table,
the row count would be incorrect if any row was moved to a different
partition, since such updates were counted twice.
Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWRMG7XX2QEsVL1LswmNo2d_YG8tKTLkpD3=Lp644S7rg@mail.gmail.com
SQL:2023 defines an ANY_VALUE aggregate whose purpose is to emit an
implementation-dependent (i.e. non-deterministic) value from the
aggregated rows.
Author: Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/5cff866c-10a8-d2df-32cb-e9072e6b04a2@postgresfriends.org
Historically we've accepted interval input like 'P.1e10D'. This
is probably an accident of having used strtod() to do the parsing,
rather than something anyone intended, but it's been that way for
a long time. Commit e39f99046 broke this by trying to parse the
integer and fractional parts separately, without accounting for
the possibility of an exponent. In principle that coding allowed
for precise conversions of field values wider than 15 decimal
digits, but that does not seem like a goal worth sweating bullets
for. So, rather than trying to manage an exponent on top of the
existing complexity, let's just revert to the previous coding that
used strtod() by itself. We can still improve on the old code to
the extent of allowing the value to range up to 1.0e15 rather than
only INT_MAX. (Allowing more than that risks creating problems
due to precision loss: the converted fractional part might have
absolute value more than 1. Perhaps that could be dealt with in
some way, but it really does not seem worth additional effort.)
Per bug #17795 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to v15 where
the faulty code came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17795-748d6db3ed95d313@postgresql.org
This was not something that required consideration before MERGE
was invented; but MERGE builds a join tree that left-joins to the
result relation, meaning that remove_useless_joins will consider
removing it. That should generally be stopped by the query's use
of output variables from the result relation. However, if the
result relation is inherited (e.g. a partitioned table) then
we don't add any row identity variables to the query until
expand_inherited_rtentry, which happens after join removal.
This was exposed as of commit 3c569049b, which made it possible
to deduce that a partitioned table could contain at most one row
matching a join key, enabling removal of the not-yet-expanded
result relation. Ooops.
To fix, let's just teach join_is_removable that the query result
rel is never removable. It's a cheap enough test in any case,
and it'll save some cycles that we'd otherwise expend in proving
that it's not removable, even in the cases we got right.
Back-patch to v15 where MERGE was added. Although I think the
case cannot be reached in v15, this seems like cheap insurance.
Per investigation of a report from Alexander Lakhin.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/36bee393-b351-16ac-93b2-d46d83637e45@gmail.com
ruleutils.c blindly printed the user-given alias (or nothing if there
hadn't been one) for the target table of INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE queries.
That works a large percentage of the time, but not always: for queries
appearing in WITH, it's possible that we chose a different alias to
avoid conflict with outer-scope names. Since the chosen alias would
be used in any Var references to the target table, this'd lead to an
inconsistent printout with consequences such as dump/restore failures.
The correct logic for printing (or not) a relation alias was embedded
in get_from_clause_item. Factor it out to a separate function so that
we don't need a jointree node to use it. (Only a limited part of that
function can be reached from these new call sites, but this seems like
the cleanest non-duplicative factorization.)
In passing, I got rid of a redundant "\d+ rules_src" step in rules.sql.
Initial report from Jonathan Katz; thanks to Vignesh C for analysis.
This has been broken for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/e947fa21-24b2-f922-375a-d4f763ef3e4b@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALDaNm1MMntjmT_NJGp-Z=xbF02qHGAyuSHfYHias3TqQbPF2w@mail.gmail.com
In commit 8bf6ec3ba, I mistakenly supposed that MergeAttributes'
loop over saved_schema was reprocessing column definitions that
had already been checked earlier: there is a variant syntax for
creating a child partition in which that's not true. So we need
to duplicate the full check appearing further up.
(Actually, I believe that the "if (restdef->identity)" part is
not reachable, because we reject identity on partitions earlier.
But it seems wise to keep the check, in case that's ever relaxed,
and to keep this code in sync with the other instance.)
Per report from Alexander Lakhin.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4a8200ca-8378-653e-38ed-b2e1f1611aa6@gmail.com
force_parallel_mode is meant to be used to allow us to exercise the
parallel query infrastructure to ensure that it's working as we expect.
It seems some users think this GUC is for forcing the query planner into
picking a parallel plan regardless of the costs. A quick look at the
documentation would have made them realize that they were wrong, but the
GUC is likely too conveniently named which, evidently, seems to often
result in users expecting that it forces the planner into usefully
parallelizing queries.
Here we rename the GUC to something which casual users are less likely to
mistakenly think is what they need to make their query run more quickly.
For now, the old name can still be used. We'll revisit if the old name
mapping can be removed once the buildfarm configs are all updated.
Reviewed-by: John Naylor
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrsOi92_uA7PEaHZMH-S4Xv+MGhQWA+GrP8b1kjpS1HjQ@mail.gmail.com
Late in the development of commit 2489d76c4, I (tgl) incorrectly
concluded that the new function have_unsafe_outer_join_ref couldn't
ever reach its inner loop. That should be the case if the inner
rel's parameterization is based on just one Var, but it could be
based on Vars from several relations, and then not only is the
inner loop reachable but it's wrongly coded.
Despite those errors, it still appears that the whole thing is
redundant given previous join_is_legal checks, so let's arrange
to only run it in assert-enabled builds.
Diagnosis and patch by Richard Guo, per fuzz testing by Justin Pryzby.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230212235823.GW1653@telsasoft.com
Here we fix a faulty "if" condition which failed to correctly handle two
or more consecutive NULL transition values when checking if the new value
is DISTINCT from the old value for presorted aggregates. Given a suitably
non-strict aggregate transition function, a byref aggregate could cause a
crash due to calling the type's equality function and passing along a
(Datum) 0 value to test for equality, the equality function would then try
to dereference that 0 Datum and segfault. For byval types, there'd have
been no crash and the equality function would have seen that the two 0
Datums matched, which (only by chance) meant the calling code would have
worked correctly.
Here we ensure that we only call the equality function when neither of
the input values are NULL.
This code is all new as of 1349d2790, so no backpatch needed.
Reported-by: Fujii Masao
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/860c6d6f-a3c5-3ae9-9da2-827177bede06@oss.nttdata.com
Commit e39f99046 moved some code up closer to the start of
DecodeInterval(), without noticing that it had been implicitly
relying on previous checks to reject the case of empty input.
Given empty input, we'd now dereference a pointer that hadn't been
set, possibly leading to a core dump. (But if we fail to provoke
a SIGSEGV, nothing bad happens, and the expected syntax error is
thrown a bit later.)
Per bug #17788 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to v15 where
the fault was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17788-dabac9f98f7eafd5@postgresql.org
An upcoming test needs to use a tablespace as part of its test. Historically,
we wanted tablespace creation be done in a dedicated file, so it's easy to
disable when testing replication. But that is not necessary anymore, due to
allow_in_place_tablespaces.
Create regress_tblspace tablespace in test_setup. Move the tablespace test to
the end of the parallel schedule, so other tests can use it.
Author: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200124195226.lth52iydq2n2uilq@alap3.anarazel.de
analyzejoins.c took care to clean out removed relids from the
clause_relids and required_relids of RestrictInfos associated with
the doomed rel ... but it paid no attention to the fact that if such a
RestrictInfo contains an OR clause, there will be sub-RestrictInfos
containing similar fields.
I'm more than a bit surprised that this oversight hasn't caused
visible problems before. In any case, it's certainly broken now,
so add logic to clean out the sub-RestrictInfos recursively.
We might need to back-patch this someday.
Per bug #17786 from Robins Tharakan.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17786-f1ea7fbdab97daec@postgresql.org
One of the add_nulling_relids calls in deconstruct_distribute_oj_quals
added an OJ relid to too few Vars, while the other added it to too
many. We should consider the syntactic structure not
min_left/righthand while deciding which Vars to decorate, and when
considering pushing up a lower outer join pursuant to transforming the
second form of OJ identity 3 to the first form, we only want to
decorate Vars coming from its LHS.
In a related bug, I realized that make_outerjoininfo was failing to
check a very basic property that's needed to apply OJ identity 3:
the syntactically-upper outer join clause can't refer to the lower
join's LHS. This didn't break the join order restriction logic,
but it led to setting bogus commute_xxx bits, possibly resulting
in bogus nullingrel markings in modified quals.
Richard Guo and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs497CmBruMx1SOjepWEz+T5NWa4scqbdE9v7ZzSXqH_gQw@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEP4nAx9C5gXNBfEA0JBfz7B+5f1Bawt-RWQWyhev-wdps8BZA@mail.gmail.com
No GUCs that use NO_SHOW_ALL are reported in pg_show_all_settings(),
hence trying to check combinations of flags related to it is pointless.
These queries have been introduced by d10e41d, so backpatch down to 15
to keep all the branches consistent. Equivalent checks based on
NO_SHOW_ALL could be added in check_GUC_init() when a GUC is initially
loaded, but this can be done only on HEAD.
Author: Nitin Jadhav
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMm1aWaYe0muu3ABo7iSAgK+OWDS9yNe8GGRYnCyeEpScYKa+g@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 15
The logic for when to add the current outer join's own relid
to the nullingrels sets of output Vars and PHVs was overly
complicated and underly correct. Not sure why I didn't think
of this before, but since what we want is marking per the
syntactic structure, we can just consult our records about
the syntactic structure, ie syn_righthand/syn_lefthand.
Also, tighten the rule about when to add the commute_above_r
bits, in hopes of eliminating some squishy reasoning. I do not
know of a reason to think that that's broken as-is, but this way
seems better.
Per bug #17781 from Robins Tharakan.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17781-c0405c8b3cd5e072@postgresql.org
The portion of join_is_removable() that checks PlaceHolderVars
can be made a little more accurate and intelligible than it was.
The key point is that we can allow join removal even if a PHV
mentions the target rel in ph_eval_at, if that mention was only
added as a consequence of forcing the PHV up to a join level
that's at/above the outer join we're trying to get rid of.
We can check that by testing for the OJ's relid appearing in
ph_eval_at, indicating that it's supposed to be evaluated after
the outer join, plus the existing test that the contained
expression doesn't actually mention the target rel.
While here, add an explicit check that there'll be something left
in ph_eval_at after we remove the target rel and OJ relid. There
is an Assert later on about that, and I'm not too sure that the
case could happen for a PHV satisfying the other constraints,
but let's just check. (There was previously a bms_is_subset test
that meant to cover this risk, but it's broken now because it
doesn't account for the fact that we'll also remove the OJ relid.)
The real reason for revisiting this code though is that the
Assert I left behind in 8538519db turns out to be easily
reachable, because if a PHV of this sort appears in an upper-level
qual clause then that clause's clause_relids will include the
PHV's ph_eval_at relids. This is a mirage though: we have or soon
will remove these relids from the PHV's ph_eval_at, and therefore
they no longer belong in qual clauses' clause_relids either.
Remove that Assert in join_is_removable, and replace the similar
one in remove_rel_from_query with code to remove the deleted relids
from clause_relids.
Per bug #17773 from Robins Tharakan.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17773-a592e6cedbc7bac5@postgresql.org
make_outerjoininfo was set up to update SpecialJoinInfo's
commute_below, commute_above_l, commute_above_r fields as soon as
it found a pair of outer joins that look like they can commute.
However, this decision could be negated later in the same loop due
to finding an intermediate outer join that prevents commutation.
That left us with commute_xxx fields that were contradictory to the
join order restrictions expressed in min_lefthand/min_righthand.
The latter fields would keep us from actually choosing a bad join
order; but the inconsistent commute_xxx fields could bollix details
such as the varnullingrels values created for intermediate join
relation targetlists, ending in an assertion failure in setrefs.c.
To fix, wait till the end of make_outerjoininfo where we have
accurate values for min_lefthand/min_righthand, and then insert
only relids not present in those sets into the commute_xxx fields.
Per SQLSmith testing by Robins Tharakan. Note that while Robins
bisected the failure to commit b448f1c8d, it's really the fault of
2489d76c4. The outerjoin_delayed logic removed in the later commit
was keeping us from deciding that troublesome join pairs commute,
at least in the specific example seen here.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEP4nAyAORgE8K_RHSmvWbE9UaChhjbEL1RrDU3neePwwRUB=A@mail.gmail.com
deconstruct_distribute tweaks the outer join scope (ojscope)
it passes to distribute_qual_to_rels when considering an outer
join qual that's above potentially-commutable outer joins.
However, if the current join is *not* potentially commutable,
we shouldn't do that. The argument that distribute_qual_to_rels
will not do something wrong with the bogus ojscope falls flat
if we don't pass it non-null postponed_oj_qual_list. Moreover,
there's no need to play games in this case since we aren't going
to commute anything.
Per SQLSmith testing by Robins Tharakan.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEP4nAw74k4b-=93gmfCNX3MOY3y4uPxqbk_MnCVEpdsqHJVsg@mail.gmail.com
If we have a RestrictInfo that mentions both the removal-candidate
relation and the outer join's relid, then that is a pushed-down
condition not a join condition, so it should be grounds for deciding
that we can't remove the outer join. In commit 2489d76c4, I'd blindly
included the OJ's relid into "joinrelids" as per the new standard
convention, but the checks of attr_needed and ph_needed should only
allow the join's input rels to be mentioned.
Having done that, the check for references in pushed-down quals
a few lines further down should be redundant. I left it in place
as an Assert, though.
While researching this I happened across a couple of comments that
worried about the effects of update_placeholder_eval_levels.
That's gone as of b448f1c8d, so we can remove some worry.
Per bug #17769 from Robins Tharakan. The submitted test case
triggers this more or less accidentally because we flatten out
a LATERAL sub-select after we've done join strength reduction;
if we did that in the other order, this problem would be masked
because the outer join would get simplified to an inner join.
To ensure that the committed test case will continue to test
what it means to even if we make that happen someday, use a
test clause involving COALESCE(), which will prevent us from
using it to do join strength reduction.
Patch by me, but thanks to Richard Guo for initial investigation.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17769-e4f7a5c9d84a80a7@postgresql.org
After pulling up LATERAL subqueries, we may have qual clauses that
refer to relations outside their syntactic scope. Before doing any
such pullup, prepjointree.c checks to make sure that it wouldn't
create a semantically-invalid situation; but we leave it to
deconstruct_jointree() to actually move these quals up the join
tree to a place where they can be evaluated. In commit 2489d76c4,
I (tgl) refactored deconstruct_jointree() in a way that caused
assertion failures while moving such quals, because the new logic
failed to distinguish "this jointree node is a parent of the source
one" from "this jointree node is processed after the source
one in depth-first order".
Fix this, and at the same time reduce the overhead a bit, by
getting rid of the common PostponedQual list and instead making each
JoinTreeItem contain a list of quals that needed to be postponed to
its level. We can help distribute_qual_to_rels find the appropriate
JoinTreeItem efficiently by adding parent-item links to the
JoinTreeItem data structure. This ends up being the same number
of relid subset checks as the original (pre-bug) logic, but less
list manipulation is required during multi-level postponements.
Richard Guo and Tom Lane, per bug #17768 from Robins Tharakan.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17768-5ac8730ece54478f@postgresql.org
This allows underscores to be used in integer and numeric literals,
and their corresponding type input functions, for visual grouping.
For example:
1_500_000_000
3.14159_26535_89793
0xffff_ffff
0b_1001_0001
A single underscore is allowed between any 2 digits, or immediately
after the base prefix indicator of non-decimal integers, per SQL:202x
draft.
Peter Eisentraut and Dean Rasheed
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/84aae844-dc55-a4be-86d9-4f0fa405cc97%40enterprisedb.com
In commit 2489d76c4, I'd thought it'd be safe to assert that a
PlaceHolderVar appearing in a scan-level expression has empty
nullingrels. However this is not so, as when we determine that a
join relation is certainly empty we'll put its targetlist into a
Result-with-constant-false-qual node, and nothing is done to adjust
the nullingrels of the Vars or PHVs therein. (Arguably, a Result
used in this way isn't really a scan-level node, but it certainly
isn't an upper node either ...)
It's not clear this is worth any close analysis, so let's just
take out the faulty Assert.
Per report from Robins Tharakan. I added a test case based on
his example, just in case somebody tries to tighten this up.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEP4nAz7Enq3+DEthGG7j27DpuwSRZnW0Nh6jtNh75yErQ_nbA@mail.gmail.com
Remove RestrictInfo.nullable_relids, along with a good deal of
infrastructure that calculated it. One use-case for it was in
join_clause_is_movable_to, but we can now replace that usage with
a check to see if the clause's relids include any outer join
that can null the target relation. The other use-case was in
join_clause_is_movable_into, but that test can just be dropped
entirely now that the clause's relids include outer joins.
Furthermore, join_clause_is_movable_into should now be
accurate enough that it will accept anything returned by
generate_join_implied_equalities, so we can restore the Assert
that was diked out in commit 95f4e59c3.
Remove the outerjoin_delayed mechanism. We needed this before to
prevent quals from getting evaluated below outer joins that should
null some of their vars. Now that we consider varnullingrels while
placing quals, that's taken care of automatically, so throw the
whole thing away.
Teach remove_useless_result_rtes to also remove useless FromExprs.
Having done that, the delay_upper_joins flag serves no purpose any
more and we can remove it, largely reverting 11086f2f2.
Use constant TRUE for "dummy" clauses when throwing back outer joins.
This improves on a hack I introduced in commit 6a6522529. If we
have a left-join clause l.x = r.y, and a WHERE clause l.x = constant,
we generate r.y = constant and then don't really have a need for the
join clause. But we must throw the join clause back anyway after
marking it redundant, so that the join search heuristics won't think
this is a clauseless join and avoid it. That was a kluge introduced
under time pressure, and after looking at it I thought of a better
way: let's just introduce constant-TRUE "join clauses" instead,
and get rid of them at the end. This improves the generated plans for
such cases by not having to test a redundant join clause. We can also
get rid of the ugly hack used to mark such clauses as redundant for
selectivity estimation.
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
This fixes a bug that, under some circumstances, would cause MERGE to
fail to properly recompute expressions for GENERATED STORED columns.
Formerly, ExecInitModifyTable() did not call ExecInitStoredGenerated()
for a MERGE command, which meant that the generated expressions
information was not computed until later, when the first merge action
was executed. However, if the first merge action to execute was an
UPDATE, then ExecInitStoredGenerated() could decide to skip some some
generated columns, if the columns on which they depended were not
updated, which was a problem if the MERGE also contained an INSERT
action, for which no generated columns should be skipped.
So fix by having ExecInitModifyTable() call ExecInitStoredGenerated()
for MERGE, and assume that it isn't safe to skip any generated columns
in a MERGE. Possibly that could be relaxed, by allowing some generated
columns to be skipped for a MERGE without an INSERT action, but it's
not clear that it's worth the effort.
Noticed while investigating bug #17759. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE
was added.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Tom Lane.
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/17759-e76d9bece1b5421c%40postgresql.orghttps://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCXb_ezoMCcL0tzKwRGA1x0oeE%3DawTaysRfTPq%2B3wNJn8g%40mail.gmail.com
9d9c02ccd introduced runConditions for window functions to allow
monotonic window function evaluation to be made more efficient when the
window function value went beyond some value that it would never go back
from due to its monotonic nature. That commit added prosupport functions
to inform the planner that row_number(), rank(), dense_rank() and some
forms of count(*) were monotonic. Here we add support for ntile(),
cume_dist() and percent_rank().
Reviewed-by: Melanie Plageman
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvqR+VqB8s+xR-24bzJbU8xyFrBszJ17qKgECf7cWxLCaA@mail.gmail.com
Previously, a CREATEROLE user without SUPERUSER could not alter
REPLICATION users in any way, and could not set the BYPASSRLS
attribute. However, they could manipulate the CREATEDB property
even if they themselves did not possess it.
With this change, a CREATEROLE user without SUPERUSER can set or
clear the REPLICATION, BYPASSRLS, or CREATEDB property on a new
role or a role that they have rights to manage if and only if
that property is set for their own role.
This implements the standard idea that you can't give permissions
you don't have (but you can give the ones you do have). We might
in the future want to provide more powerful ways to constrain
what a CREATEROLE user can do - for example, to limit whether
CONNECTION LIMIT can be set or the values to which it can be set -
but that is left as future work.
Patch by me, reviewed by Nathan Bossart, Tushar Ahuja, and Neha
Sharma.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobX=LHg_J5aT=0pi9gJy=JdtrUVGAu0zhr-i5v5nNbJDg@mail.gmail.com
When libpqrcv_connect (also known as walrcv_connect()) failed, it leaked the
libpq connection. In most paths that's fairly harmless, as the calling process
will exit soon after. But e.g. CREATE SUBSCRIPTION could lead to a somewhat
longer lived leak.
Fix by releasing resources, including the libpq connection, on error.
Add a test exercising the error code path. To make it reliable and safe, the
test tries to connect to port=-1, which happens to fail during connection
establishment, rather than during connection string parsing.
Reviewed-by: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230121011237.q52apbvlarfv6jm6@awork3.anarazel.de
Backpatch: 11-
b762fed64 recently changed this test to prevent subquery pullup to allow
us to test Memoize with lateral_vars. As pointed out by Tom Lane, OFFSET
0 is our standard way of preventing subquery pullups, so do it that way
instead.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2144818.1674517061@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch-through: 14, same as b762fed64
