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
In the dim past we figured it was okay to ignore collations
when combining UNION set-operation nodes into a single N-way
UNION operation. I believe that was fine at the time, but
it stopped being fine when we added nondeterministic collations:
the semantics of distinct-ness are affected by those. v17 made
it even less fine by allowing per-child sorting operations to
be merged via MergeAppend, although I think we accidentally
avoided any live bug from that.
Add a check that collations match before deciding that two
UNION nodes are equivalent. I also failed to resist the
temptation to comment plan_union_children() a little better.
Back-patch to all supported branches (v13 now), since they
all have nondeterministic collations.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3605568.1731970579@sss.pgh.pa.us
Commit ac04aa84a put the shutoff for this into the planner, which is
not ideal because it doesn't prevent us from re-using a previously
made parallel plan. Revert the planner change and instead put the
shutoff into InitializeParallelDSM, modeling it on the existing code
there for recovering from failure to allocate a DSM segment.
However, that code path is mostly untested, and testing a bit harder
showed there's at least one bug: ExecHashJoinReInitializeDSM is not
prepared for us to have skipped doing parallel DSM setup. I also
thought the Assert in ReinitializeParallelWorkers is pretty
ill-advised, and replaced it with a silent Min() operation.
The existing test case added by ac04aa84a serves fine to test this
version of the fix, so no change needed there.
Patch by me, but thanks to Noah Misch for the core idea that we
could shut off worker creation when !INTERRUPTS_CAN_BE_PROCESSED.
Back-patch to v12, as ac04aa84a was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAC-SaSzHUKT=vZJ8MPxYdC_URPfax+yoA1hKTcF4ROz_Q6z0_Q@mail.gmail.com
If the collation of any join key column doesn’t match the collation of
the corresponding partition key, partitionwise joins can yield incorrect
results. For example, rows that would match under the join key collation
might be located in different partitions due to the partitioning
collation. In such cases, a partitionwise join would yield different
results from a non-partitionwise join, so disallow it in such cases.
Reported-by: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Author: Jian He <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHewXNno_HKiQ6PqyLYfuqDtwp7KKHZiH1J7Pqyz0nr+PS2Dwg@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 12
If the collation of any grouping column doesn’t match the collation of
the corresponding partition key, partitionwise grouping can yield
incorrect results. For example, rows that would be grouped under the
grouping collation may end up in different partitions under the
partitioning collation. In such cases, full partitionwise grouping
would produce results that differ from those without partitionwise
grouping, so disallowed that.
Partial partitionwise aggregation is still allowed, as the Finalize
step reconciles partition-level aggregates with grouping requirements
across all partitions, ensuring that the final output remains
consistent.
This commit also fixes group_by_has_partkey() by ensuring the
RelabelType node is stripped from grouping expressions when matching
them to partition key expressions to avoid false mismatches.
Bug: #18568
Reported-by: Webbo Han <1105066510@qq.com>
Author: Webbo Han <1105066510@qq.com>
Reviewed-by: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
Reviewed-by: Jian He <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18568-2a9afb6b9f7e6ed3@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/tencent_9D9103CDA420C07768349CC1DFF88465F90A@qq.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHewXNno_HKiQ6PqyLYfuqDtwp7KKHZiH1J7Pqyz0nr+PS2Dwg@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 12
The decision in b6e1157e7 to ignore raw_expr when evaluating a
JsonValueExpr was incorrect. While its value is not ultimately
used (since formatted_expr's value is), failing to initialize it
can lead to problems, for instance, when the expression tree in
raw_expr contains Aggref nodes, which must be initialized to
ensure the parent Agg node works correctly.
Also, optimize eval_const_expressions_mutator()'s handling of
JsonValueExpr a bit. Currently, when formatted_expr cannot be folded
into a constant, we end up processing it twice -- once directly in
eval_const_expressions_mutator() and again recursively via
ece_generic_processing(). This recursive processing is required to
handle raw_expr. To avoid the redundant processing of formatted_expr,
we now process raw_expr directly in eval_const_expressions_mutator().
Finally, update the comment of JsonValueExpr to describe the roles of
raw_expr and formatted_expr more clearly.
Bug: #18657
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Diagnosed-by: Fabio R. Sluzala <fabio3rs@gmail.com>
Diagnosed-by: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18657-1b90ccce2b16bdb8@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 16
find_computable_ec_member() had the wrong mental model of what
its primary caller prepare_sort_from_pathkeys() would do with
the selected EquivalenceClass member expression. We will not
compute the EC expression in a plan node atop the one returning
the passed-in targetlist; rather, the EC expression will be
computed as an additional column of that targetlist. So any
Var or quasi-Var used in the given tlist is also available to the
EC expression. In simple cases this makes no difference because
the given tlist is just a list of Vars or quasi-Vars --- but if
we are considering an appendrel member produced by flattening
a UNION ALL, the tlist may contain expressions, resulting in
failure to match and a "could not find pathkey item to sort"
error.
To fix, we can flatten both the tlist and the EC members with
pull_var_clause(), and then just check for subset-ness, so
that the code is actually shorter than before.
While this bug is quite old, the present patch only works back to
v13. We could possibly make it work in v12 by back-patching parts
of 375398244. On the whole though I don't like the risk/reward
ratio of that idea. v12's final release is next month, meaning
there would be no chance to correct matters if the patch causes a
regression. Since this failure has escaped notice for 14 years,
it's likely nobody will hit it in the field with v12.
Per bug #18652 from Alexander Lakhin.
Andrei Lepikhov and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18652-deaa782ebcca85d1@postgresql.org
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
When a partition is detached and immediately dropped, a prepared
statement could try to compute a new partition descriptor that includes
it. This leads to this kind of error:
ERROR: could not open relation with OID 457639
Avoid this by skipping the partition in expand_partitioned_rtentry if it
doesn't exist.
Noted by me while investigating bug #18559. Kuntal Gosh helped to
identify the exact failure.
Backpatch to 14, where DETACH CONCURRENTLY was introduced.
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/202408122233.bo4adt3vh5bi@alvherre.pgsql
To deparse a reference to a field of a RECORD-type output of a
subquery, EXPLAIN normally digs down into the subquery's plan to try
to discover exactly which anonymous RECORD type is meant. However,
this can fail if the subquery has been optimized out of the plan
altogether on the grounds that no rows could pass the WHERE quals,
which has been possible at least since 3fc6e2d7f. There isn't
anything remaining in the plan tree that would help us, so fall back
to printing the field name as "fN" for the N'th column of the record.
(This will actually be the right thing some of the time, since it
matches the column names we assign to RowExprs.)
In passing, fix a comment typo in create_projection_plan, which
I noticed while experimenting with an alternative fix for this.
Per bug #18576 from Vasya B. Back-patch to all supported branches.
Richard Guo and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18576-9feac34e132fea9e@postgresql.org
When pg_dump retrieves the list of database objects and performs the
data dump, there was possibility that objects are replaced with others
of the same name, such as views, and access them. This vulnerability
could result in code execution with superuser privileges during the
pg_dump process.
This issue can arise when dumping data of sequences, foreign
tables (only 13 or later), or tables registered with a WHERE clause in
the extension configuration table.
To address this, pg_dump now utilizes the newly introduced
restrict_nonsystem_relation_kind GUC parameter to restrict the
accesses to non-system views and foreign tables during the dump
process. This new GUC parameter is added to back branches too, but
these changes do not require cluster recreation.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Reviewed-by: Noah Misch
Security: CVE-2024-7348
Backpatch-through: 12
In cost_memoize_rescan(), when calculating the hit_ratio using the calls
and ndistinct estimations, if the value that was set in
MemoizePath.calls had not been processed through clamp_row_est(), then it
was possible that it was set to some non-integer value which could result
in ndistinct being 1 higher than calls due to estimate_num_groups()
performing clamp_row_est() on its input_rows. This could result in
hit_ratio values slightly below 0.0, which would cause an Assert failure.
The value of MemoizePath.calls comes from the final parameter in the
create_memoize_path() function, of which we only have one true caller of.
That caller passes outer_path->rows. All the core code I looked at
always seems to call clamp_row_est() on the Path.rows, so there might
have been no issues with any core Paths causing troubles here. The bug
report was about a CustomPath with a non-clamped row estimated.
The misbehavior as a result of this seems to be mostly limited to the
Assert() failing. Aside from that, it seems the Memoize costs would
just come out slightly higher than they should have, which is likely
fairly harmless.
Reported-by: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@heterodb.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOP8fzZnTU+N64UYJYogb1hN-5hFP+PwTb3m_cnGAD7EsQwrKw@mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was introduced
infer_arbiter_indexes failed to renumber varnos in index expressions
or predicates that it got from the catalogs. This escaped detection
up to now because the stored varnos in such trees will be 1, and an
INSERT's result relation is usually the first rangetable entry,
so that that was fine. However, in cases such as inserting through
an updatable view, it's not fine, leading to failure to match the
expressions to the query with ensuing "there is no unique or exclusion
constraint matching the ON CONFLICT specification" errors.
Fix by copy-and-paste from get_relation_info().
Per bug #18502 from Michael Wang. Back-patch to all supported
versions.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18502-545b53f5b81e54e0@postgresql.org
We are capable of optimizing MIN() and MAX() aggregates on indexed
columns into subqueries that exploit the index, rather than the normal
thing of scanning the whole table. When we do this, we replace the
Aggref node(s) with Params referencing subquery outputs. Such Params
really ought to be included in the per-plan-node extParam/allParam
sets computed by SS_finalize_plan. However, we've never done so
up to now because of an ancient implementation choice to perform
that substitution during set_plan_references, which runs after
SS_finalize_plan, so that SS_finalize_plan never sees these Params.
The cleanest fix would be to perform a separate tree walk to do
these substitutions before SS_finalize_plan runs. That seems
unattractive, first because a whole-tree mutation pass is expensive,
and second because we lack infrastructure for visiting expression
subtrees in a Plan tree, so that we'd need a new function knowing
as much as SS_finalize_plan knows about that. I also considered
swapping the order of SS_finalize_plan and set_plan_references,
but that fell foul of various assumptions that seem tricky to fix.
So the approach adopted here is to teach SS_finalize_plan itself
to check for such Aggrefs. I refactored things a bit in setrefs.c
to avoid having three copies of the code that does that.
Back-patch of v17 commits d0d44049d and 779ac2c74. When d0d44049d
went in, there was no evidence that it was fixing a reachable bug,
so I refrained from back-patching. Now we have such evidence.
Per bug #18465 from Hal Takahara. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18465-2fae927718976b22@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2391880.1689025003@sss.pgh.pa.us
When building a join clause derived from an EquivalenceClass, if the
clause is to be used with an appendrel child relation then make sure
its clause_relids include the relids of that child relation.
Normally this would be true already because the EquivalenceMember
would be a Var of that relation. However, if the appendrel represents
a flattened UNION ALL construct then some child EquivalenceMembers
could be constants with no relids. The resulting under-marked clause
is problematic because it could mislead join_clause_is_movable_into
about where the clause should be evaluated. We do not have an example
showing incorrect plan generation, but there are existing cases in
the regression tests that will fail the Asserts this patch adds to
get_baserel_parampathinfo. A similarly wrong conclusion about a
clause being considered by get_joinrel_parampathinfo would lead to
wrong placement of the clause. (This also squares with the way
that clause_relids is calculated for non-equijoin clauses in
adjust_appendrel_attrs.)
The other reason for wanting these new Asserts is that the previous
blithe assumption that the results of generate_join_implied_equalities
"necessarily satisfy join_clause_is_movable_into" turns out to be
wrong pre-v16. If it's still wrong it'd be good to find out.
Per bug #18429 from Benoît Ryder. The bug as filed was fixed by
commit 2489d76c4, but these changes correlate with the fix we
will need to apply in pre-v16 branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18429-8982d4a348cc86c6@postgresql.org
Commit 2ed8f9a01 intended to institute a policy that if a
RangeTblFunction has a coldeflist, then the function return type is
certainly RECORD, and we should use the coldeflist as the source of
truth about what the columns of the record type are. When the
original function has been folded to a constant, inspection of the
constant might give a different answer. This situation will lead to
a tuple-type-mismatch error at execution, but up until that point we
need to consistently believe the coldeflist, or we'll have problems
from different bits of code reaching different conclusions.
expandRTE didn't get that memo though, and would try to produce a
tupdesc based on the constant in this situation, leading to an
assertion failure. (Desultory testing suggests that non-assert
builds often manage to give the expected error, although I also
saw a "cache lookup failed for type 0" error, and it seems at
least possible that a crash could happen.)
Some other callers of get_expr_result_type and get_expr_result_tupdesc
were also being incautious about this. While none of them seem to
have actual bugs, they're working harder than necessary in this case,
besides which it seems safest to have an explicit policy of not using
those functions on an RTE with a coldeflist. Adjust the code
accordingly, and add commentary to funcapi.c about this policy.
Also fix an obsolete comment that claimed "get_expr_result_type()
doesn't know how to extract type info from a RECORD constant".
That hasn't been true since commit d57534740.
Per bug #18422 from Alexander Lakhin.
As with the previous commit, back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18422-89ca86c8eac5246d@postgresql.org
Similar to d8a295389, trim off any PathKeys which are for ORDER BY /
DISTINCT aggregate functions from the PathKey List for the Gather Merge
paths created by gather_grouping_paths(). These additional PathKeys are
not valid to use after grouping has taken place as these PathKeys belong
to columns which are inputs to an aggregate function and, therefore are
unavailable after aggregation.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/cf63174c-8c89-3953-cb49-48f41f74941a@gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 16, where 1349d2790 was added
There is a very ancient hack in check_sql_fn_retval that allows a
single SELECT targetlist entry of composite type to be taken as
supplying all the output columns of a function returning composite.
(This is grotty and fundamentally ambiguous, but it's really hard
to do nested composite-returning functions without it.)
As far as I know, that doesn't cause any problems in ordinary
functions. It's disastrous for procedures however. All procedures
that have any output parameters are labeled with prorettype RECORD,
and the CALL code expects it will get back a record with one column
per output parameter, regardless of whether any of those parameters
is composite. Doing something else leads to an assertion failure
or core dump.
This is simple enough to fix: we just need to not apply that rule
when considering procedures. However, that requires adding another
argument to check_sql_fn_retval, which at least in principle might be
getting called by external callers. Therefore, in the back branches
convert check_sql_fn_retval into an ABI-preserving wrapper around a
new function check_sql_fn_retval_ext.
Per report from Yahor Yuzefovich. This has been broken since we
implemented procedures, so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CABz5gWHSjj2df6uG0NRiDhZ_Uz=Y8t0FJP-_SVSsRsnrQT76Gg@mail.gmail.com
This reverts commit eae7be600b, following a discussion with Tom Lane,
due to concerns that this impacts the decisions made by the planner for
the number of workers spawned based on the inlining and const-folding of
index expressions and predicate for cases that would have worked until
this commit.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/162802.1709746091@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch-through: 12
In the corner case where a function returning RECORD has been
simplified to a RECORD constant or an inlined ROW() expression,
ExecInitFunctionScan failed to cross-check the function's result
rowtype against the coldeflist provided by the calling query.
That happened because get_expr_result_type is able to extract a
tupdesc from such expressions, which led ExecInitFunctionScan to
ignore the coldeflist. (Instead, it used the extracted tupdesc
to check the function's output, which of course always succeeds.)
I have not been able to demonstrate any really serious consequences
from this, because if some column of the result is of the wrong
type and is directly referenced by a Var of the calling query,
CheckVarSlotCompatibility will catch it. However, we definitely do
fail to report the case where the function returns more columns than
the coldeflist expects, and in the converse case where it returns
fewer columns, we get an assert failure (but, seemingly, no worse
results in non-assert builds).
To fix, always build the expected tupdesc from the coldeflist if there
is one, and consult get_expr_result_type only when there isn't one.
Also remove the failing Assert, even though it is no longer reached
after this fix. It doesn't seem to be adding anything useful, since
later checking will deal with cases with the wrong number of columns.
The only other place I could find that is doing something similar
is inline_set_returning_function. There's no live bug there because
we cannot be looking at a Const or RowExpr, but for consistency
change that code to agree with ExecInitFunctionScan.
Per report from PetSerAl. After some debate I've concluded that
this should be back-patched. There is a small risk that somebody
has been relying on such a case not throwing an error, but I judge
this outweighed by the risk that I've missed some way in which the
failure to cross-check has worse consequences than sketched above.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKygsHSerA1eXsJHR9wft3Gn3wfHQ5RfP8XHBzF70_qcrrRvEg@mail.gmail.com
As coded, the planner logic that calculates the number of parallel
workers to use for a parallel index build uses expressions and
predicates from the relcache, which are flattened for the planner by
eval_const_expressions().
As reported in the bug, an immutable parallel-unsafe function flattened
in the relcache would become a Const, which would be considered as
parallel-safe, even if the predicate or the expressions including the
function are not safe in parallel workers. Depending on the expressions
or predicate used, this could cause the parallel build to fail.
Tests are included that check parallel index builds with parallel-unsafe
predicate and expressions. Two routines are added to lsyscache.h to be
able to retrieve expressions and predicate of an index from its pg_index
data.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin
Author: Tender Wang
Reviewed-by: Jian He, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHewXN=UaAaNn9ruHDH3Os8kxLVmtWqbssnf=dZN_s9=evHUFA@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 12
build_child_join_sjinfo creates a derived SpecialJoinInfo in
the short-lived GEQO context, but afterwards the semi_rhs_exprs
from that may be used in a UniquePath for a child base relation.
This breaks the expectation that all base-relation-level structures
are in the planning-lifespan context, leading to use of a dangling
pointer with probable ensuing crash later on in create_unique_plan.
To fix, copy the expression trees when making a UniquePath.
Per bug #18360 from Alexander Lakhin. This has been broken since
partitionwise joins were added, so back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18360-a23caf3157f34e62@postgresql.org
The path we wish to reparameterize is not a standalone object:
in particular, it implicitly references baserestrictinfo clauses
in the associated RelOptInfo, and if it's a SampleScan path then
there is also the TableSampleClause in the RTE to worry about.
Both of those could contain lateral references to the join partner
relation, which would need to be modified to refer to its child.
Since we aren't doing that, affected queries can give wrong answers,
or odd failures such as "variable not found in subplan target list",
or executor crashes. But we can't just summarily modify those
expressions, because they are shared with other paths for the rel.
We'd break things if we modify them and then end up using some
non-partitioned-join path.
In HEAD, we plan to fix this by postponing reparameterization
until create_plan(), when we know that those other paths are
no longer of interest, and then adjusting those expressions along
with the ones in the path itself. That seems like too big a change
for stable branches however. In the back branches, let's just detect
whether any troublesome lateral references actually exist in those
expressions, and fail reparameterization if so. This will result in
not performing a partitioned join in such cases. Given the lack of
field complaints, nobody's likely to miss the optimization.
Report and patch by Richard Guo. Apply to 12-16 only, since
the intended fix for HEAD looks quite different. We're not quite
ready to push the HEAD fix, but with back-branch releases coming
up soon, it seems wise to get this stopgap fix in place there.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs496+N=UAjOc=rcD3P7B6oJe4rZw08e_TZRUsWbPxZW3Tw@mail.gmail.com
Oversight in 2489d76c4. Preliminary analysis suggests that the
problem may be unreachable --- but if we did have instances of
the same column with different varnullingrels, we'd surely need
to treat them as different Params.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/412552.1706203379@sss.pgh.pa.us
This was previously fixed in 9e215378d but got broken again as a result
of 2489d76c4. It seems that commit causes ppi_clauses to contain
duplicate clauses and it's no longer safe to check the list_length of
that list to determine if there are join conditions other than what's
mentioned in ppi_clauses.
Here we adjust the check to count the distinct rinfo_serial mentioned in
ppi_clauses. We expect that extra->restrictlist won't have duplicate
rinfo_serials.
Reported-by: Amadeo Gallardo
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADFREbW-BLJd7-a5J%2B5wjVumeFG1ByXiSOFzMtkmY_SDWckTxw%40mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 16, where 2489d76c4 was introduced.
The code for wrapping subquery output expressions in PlaceHolderVars
believed that if the expression already was a PlaceHolderVar, it was
never necessary to wrap that in another one. That's wrong if the
expression is underneath an outer join and involves a lateral
reference to outside that scope: failing to add an additional PHV
risks evaluating the expression at the wrong place and hence not
forcing it to null when the outer join should do so. This is an
oversight in commit 9e7e29c75, which added logic to forcibly wrap
lateral-reference Vars in PlaceHolderVars, but didn't see that the
adjacent case for PlaceHolderVars needed the same treatment.
The test case we have for this doesn't fail before 4be058fe9, but now
that I see the problem I wonder if it is possible to demonstrate
related errors before that. That's moot though, since all such
branches are out of support.
Per bug #18284 from Holger Reise. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18284-47505a20c23647f8@postgresql.org
contain_mutable_functions and contain_volatile_functions give
reliable answers only after expression preprocessing (specifically
eval_const_expressions). Some places understand this, but some did
not get the memo --- which is not entirely their fault, because the
problem is documented only in places far away from those functions.
Introduce wrapper functions that allow doing the right thing easily,
and add commentary in hopes of preventing future mistakes from
copy-and-paste of code that's only conditionally safe.
Two actual bugs of this ilk are fixed here. We failed to preprocess
column GENERATED expressions before checking mutability, so that the
code could fail to detect the use of a volatile function
default-argument expression, or it could reject a polymorphic function
that is actually immutable on the datatype of interest. Likewise,
column DEFAULT expressions weren't preprocessed before determining if
it's safe to apply the attmissingval mechanism. A false negative
would just result in an unnecessary table rewrite, but a false
positive could allow the attmissingval mechanism to be used in a case
where it should not be, resulting in unexpected initial values in a
new column.
In passing, re-order the steps in ComputePartitionAttrs so that its
checks for invalid column references are done before applying
expression_planner, rather than after. The previous coding would
not complain if a partition expression contains a disallowed column
reference that gets optimized away by constant folding, which seems
to me to be a behavior we do not want.
Per bug #18097 from Jim Keener. Back-patch to all supported versions.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18097-ebb179674f22932f@postgresql.org
We can simplify FieldSelect on a whole-row Var into a plain Var
for the selected field. However, we should copy the whole-row Var's
varnullingrels when we do so, because the new Var is clearly nullable
by exactly the same rels as the original. Failure to do this led to
errors like "wrong varnullingrels (b) (expected (b 3)) for Var 2/2".
Richard Guo, per bug #18184 from Marian Krucina. Back-patch to
v16 where varnullingrels was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18184-5868dd258782058e@postgresql.org
Currently, expand_single_inheritance_child() doesn't reset
perminfoindex in a plain-inheritance parent's child RTE, because
prior to 387f9ed0a0, the executor would use the first child RTE to
locate the parent's RTEPermissionInfo. That in turn causes
add_rte_to_flat_rtable() to create an extra RTEPermissionInfo
belonging to the parent's child RTE with the same content as the one
belonging to the parent's original ("root") RTE.
In 387f9ed0a0, we changed things so that the executor can now use the
parent's "root" RTE for locating its RTEPermissionInfo instead of the
child RTE, so the latter's perminfoindex need not be set anymore, so
make it so.
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/839708.1698174464@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch-through: 16
When an UPDATE/DELETE/MERGE's target table is an old-style
inheritance tree, it's possible for the parent to get excluded
from the plan while some children are not. (I believe this is
only possible if we can prove that a CHECK ... NO INHERIT
constraint on the parent contradicts the query WHERE clause,
so it's a very unusual case.) In such a case, ExecInitModifyTable
mistakenly concluded that the first surviving child is the target
table, leading to at least two bugs:
1. The wrong table's statement-level triggers would get fired.
2. In v16 and up, it was possible to fail with "invalid perminfoindex
0 in RTE with relid nnnn" due to the child RTE not having permissions
data included in the query plan. This was hard to reproduce reliably
because it did not occur unless the update triggered some non-HOT
index updates.
In v14 and up, this is easy to fix by defining ModifyTable.rootRelation
to be the parent RTE in plain inheritance as well as partitioned cases.
While the wrong-triggers bug also appears in older branches, the
relevant code in both the planner and executor is quite a bit
different, so it would take a good deal of effort to develop and
test a suitable patch. Given the lack of field complaints about the
trigger issue, I'll desist for now. (Patching v11 for this seems
unwise anyway, given that it will have no more releases after next
month.)
Per bug #18147 from Hans Buschmann.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18147-6fc796538913ee88@postgresql.org
1349d2790 added code to adjust the PlannerInfo.group_pathkeys so that
ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregate functions could obtain pre-sorted inputs
to allow faster execution. That commit forgot to adjust the pathkeys in
create_agg_path(). Some code in there assumed that it was always fine
to make the AggPath's pathkeys the same as its subpath's. That seems to
have been ok up until 1349d2790, but since that commit adds pathkeys for
columns which are within the aggregate function, those columns won't be
available above the aggregate node. This can result in "could not find
pathkey item to sort" during create_plan().
The fix here is to strip off the additional pathkeys added by
adjust_group_pathkeys_for_groupagg(). It seems that the pathkeys here
will only ever be group_pathkeys, so all we need to do is check if the
length of the pathkey list is longer than the num_groupby_pathkeys and
get rid of the additional ones only if we see extras.
Reported-by: Justin Pryzby
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZQhYYRhUxpW3PSf9%40telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 16, where 1349d2790 was introduced
Under some circumstances, concurrent MERGE operations could lead to
inconsistent results, that varied according the plan chosen. This was
caused by a lack of rowmarks on the source relation, which meant that
EvalPlanQual rechecking was not guaranteed to return the same source
tuples when re-running the join query.
Fix by ensuring that preprocess_rowmarks() sets up PlanRowMarks for
all non-target relations used in MERGE, in the same way that it does
for UPDATE and DELETE.
Per bug #18103. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18103-c4386baab8e355e3%40postgresql.org
Tid Range scans were added back in bb437f995. That commit forgot to add
handling for TidRangePaths in print_path().
Only people building with OPTIMIZER_DEBUG might have noticed this, which
likely is the reason it's taken 4 years for anyone to notice.
Author: Andrey Lepikhov
Reported-by: Andrey Lepikhov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/379082d6-1b6a-4cd6-9ecf-7157d8c08635@postgrespro.ru
Backpatch-through: 14, where bb437f995 was introduced
Parse analysis of a CallStmt will inject mutable information,
for instance the OID of the called procedure, so that subsequent
DDL may create a need to re-parse the CALL. We failed to detect
this for CALLs in plpgsql routines, because no dependency information
was collected when putting a CallStmt into the plan cache. That
could lead to misbehavior or strange errors such as "cache lookup
failed".
Before commit ee895a655, the issue would only manifest for CALLs
appearing in atomic contexts, because we re-planned non-atomic
CALLs every time through anyway.
It is now apparent that extract_query_dependencies() probably
needs a special case for every utility statement type for which
stmt_requires_parse_analysis() returns true. I wanted to add
something like Assert(!stmt_requires_parse_analysis(...)) when
falling out of extract_query_dependencies_walker without doing
anything, but there are API issues as well as a more fundamental
point: stmt_requires_parse_analysis is supposed to be applied to
raw parser output, so it'd be cheating to assume it will give the
correct answer for post-parse-analysis trees. I contented myself
with adding a comment.
Per bug #18131 from Christian Stork. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18131-576854e79c5cd264@postgresql.org
The comment introduced by commit e7cb7ee14 was a bit too terse, which
could lead to extensions doing different things within the hook function
than we intend to allow. Extend the comment to explain what they can do
within the hook function.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
In passing, I rephrased a nearby comment that I recently added to the
back branches.
Reviewed by David Rowley and Andrei Lepikhov.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPmGK15SBPA1nr3Aqsdm%2BYyS-ay0Ayo2BRYQ8_A2To9eLqwopQ%40mail.gmail.com
Both 50e17ad28 and 29f45e299 mistakenly tried to record a plan dependency
on a function but mistakenly inverted the OidIsValid test. This meant
that we'd record a dependency only when the function's Oid was
InvalidOid. Clearly this was meant to *not* record the dependency in
that case.
50e17ad28 made this mistake first, then in v15 29f45e299 copied the same
mistake.
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Backpatch-through: 14, where 50e17ad28 first made this mistake
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2277537.1694301772@sss.pgh.pa.us
The use of Memoize was already disabled in normal joins when the join
conditions had volatile functions per the code in
match_opclause_to_indexcol(). Ordinarily, the parameterization for the
inner side of a nested loop will be an Index Scan or at least eventually
lead to an index scan (perhaps nested several joins deep). However, for
lateral joins, that's not the case and seq scans can be parameterized
too, so we can't rely on match_opclause_to_indexcol().
Here we explicitly check the parameterization for volatile functions and
don't consider the generation of a Memoize path when such functions
are present.
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs49nHFnHbpepLsv_yF3qkpCS4BdB-v8HoJVv8_=Oat0u_w@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was introduced
Commit e7cb7ee14, which introduced the infrastructure for FDWs and
custom scan providers to replace joins with scans, failed to add support
handling of pseudoconstant quals assigned to replaced joins in
createplan.c, leading to an incorrect plan without a gating Result node
when postgres_fdw replaced a join with such a qual.
To fix, we could add the support by 1) modifying the ForeignPath and
CustomPath structs to store the list of RestrictInfo nodes to apply to
the join, as in JoinPaths, if they represent foreign and custom scans
replacing a join with a scan, and by 2) modifying create_scan_plan() in
createplan.c to use that list in that case, instead of the
baserestrictinfo list, to get pseudoconstant quals assigned to the join;
but #1 would cause an ABI break. So fix by modifying the infrastructure
to just disallow replacing joins with such quals.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Reported by Nishant Sharma. Patch by me, reviewed by Nishant Sharma and
Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADrsxdbcN1vejBaf8a%2BQhrZY5PXL-04mCd4GDu6qm6FigDZd6Q%40mail.gmail.com
After 3c90dcd03, try_partitionwise_join's child_joinrelids
variable is read only in an Assert, provoking a compiler
warning in non-assert builds. Rearrange code to avoid the
warning and eliminate unnecessary work in the non-assert case.
Per CI testing (via Jeff Davis and Bharath Rupireddy)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ef0de9713e605451f1b60b30648c5ee900b2394c.camel@j-davis.com
Applying add_outer_joins_to_relids() to a child join doesn't actually
work, even if we've built a SpecialJoinInfo specialized to the child,
because that function will also compare the join's relids to elements
of the main join_info_list, which only deal in regular relids not
child relids. This mistake escaped detection by the existing
partitionwise join tests because they didn't test any cases where
add_outer_joins_to_relids() needs to add additional OJ relids (that
is, any cases where join reordering per identity 3 is possible).
Instead, let's apply adjust_child_relids() to the relids of the parent
join. This requires minor code reordering to collect the relevant
AppendRelInfo structures first, but that's work we'd do shortly anyway.
Report and fix by Richard Guo; cosmetic changes by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs49NCNbyubZWgci3o=_OTY=snCfAPtMnM-32f3mm-K-Ckw@mail.gmail.com
A CaseTestExpr is currently being put into
JsonValueExpr.formatted_expr as placeholder for the result of
evaluating JsonValueExpr.raw_expr, which in turn is evaluated
separately. Though, there's no need for this indirection if
raw_expr itself can be embedded into formatted_expr and evaluated
as part of evaluating the latter, especially as there is no
special reason to evaluate it separately. So this commit makes it
so. As a result, JsonValueExpr.raw_expr no longer needs to be
evaluated in ExecInterpExpr(), eval_const_exprs_mutator() etc. and
is now only used for displaying the original "unformatted"
expression in ruleutils.c. Comments about and the code manipulating
formatted_expr is updated to mention that it is now always set and
is the expression that gives a JsonValueExpr its runtime value.
While at it, this also removes the function makeCaseTestExpr(),
because the code in makeJsonConstructorExpr() looks more readable
without it IMO and isn't used by anyone else either.
Finally, a note is added in the comment above CaseTestExpr's
definition that JsonConstructorExpr is also using it.
Backpatched to 16 from the development branch to keep the code in
sync across branches.
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqE4XTdfb1nW=Ojoy_tQSRhYt-q_kb6i5d4xcKyrLC1Nbg@mail.gmail.com
This commit reverts the work done by commits 3ba59ccc89 and 72e78d831a.
Those commits were incorrect in asserting that we never acquire any other
heavy-weight lock after acquring page lock other than relation extension
lock. We can acquire a lock on catalogs while doing catalog look up after
acquring page lock.
This won't impact any existing feature but we need to think some other way
to achieve this before parallelizing other write operations or even
improving the parallelism in vacuum (like allowing multiple workers
for an index).
Reported-by: Jaime Casanova
Author: Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJKUy5jffnRKNvRHKQ0LynRb0RJC-o4P8Ku3x9vGAVLwDBWumQ@mail.gmail.com
An outer join cannot be formed using an input path that is parameterized
by a value that is supposed to be nulled by the outer join. This is
obviously nonsensical, and it could lead to a bad plan being selected;
although currently it seems that we'll hit various sanity-check
assertions first.
I think that such cases were formerly prevented by the delay_upper_joins
mechanism, but now that that's gone we need an explicit check.
(Perhaps we should avoid generating baserel paths that could
lead to this situation in the first place; but it seems like
having a defense at the join level would be a good idea anyway.)
Richard Guo and Tom Lane, per report from Jaime Casanova
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJKUy5g2uZRrUDZJ8p-=giwcSHVUn0c9nmdxPSY0jF0Ov8VoEA@mail.gmail.com
If the inner-side expressions contain PARAM_EXEC Params, we must
re-hash whenever the values of those Params change. The executor
mechanism for that exists already, but we failed to invoke it because
finalize_plan() neglected to search the Hash.hashkeys field for
Params. This allowed a previous scan's hash table to be re-used
when it should not be, leading to rows missing from the join's output.
(I believe incorrectly-included join rows are impossible however,
since checking the real hashclauses would reject false matches.)
This bug is very ancient, dating probably to d24d75ff1 of 7.4.
Sadly, this simple fix depends on the plan representational changes
made by 2abd7ae9b, so it will only work back to v12. I thought
about trying to make some kind of hack for v11, but I'm leery
of putting code significantly different from what is used in the
newer branches into a nearly-EOL branch. Seeing that the bug
escaped detection for a full twenty years, problematic cases
must be rare; so I don't feel too awful about leaving v11 as-is.
Per bug #17985 from Zuming Jiang. Back-patch to v12.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17985-748b66607acd432e@postgresql.org
I removed the delay_upper_joins mechanism in commit b448f1c8d,
reasoning that it was only needed when we have a single-table
(SELECT ... WHERE) as the immediate RHS child of a left join,
and we could get rid of that by hoisting the WHERE condition into
the parent join's quals. However that new code missed a case:
we could have "foo LEFT JOIN ((SELECT ... WHERE) LEFT JOIN bar)",
and if the two left joins can be commuted then we now have the
problematic query shape. We can fix this too easily enough,
by allowing the syntactically-lower left join to pass through
its parent qual location pointer recursively. That lets
prepjointree.c discard the SELECT by temporarily hoisting the
WHERE condition into the ancestor join's qual.
Per bug #17978 from Zuming Jiang.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17978-12f3d93a55297266@postgresql.org
