Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning
Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Attachments
- v48-0007-Delay-locking-of-child-tables-in-cached-plans-un.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v48-0007
- v48-0006-Add-field-to-store-parent-relids-to-Append-Merge.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v48-0006
- v48-0008-Track-opened-range-table-relations-in-a-List-in-.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v48-0008
- v48-0005-Assert-that-relations-needing-their-permissions-.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v48-0005
- v48-0004-Teach-the-executor-to-lock-child-tables-in-some-.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v48-0004
- v48-0003-Adjustments-to-allow-ExecutorStart-to-sometimes-.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v48-0003
- v48-0001-Assorted-tightening-in-various-ExecEnd-routines.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v48-0001
- v48-0002-Prepare-executor-to-support-detecting-CachedPlan.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v48-0002
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 10:06 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:57 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:20 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > - Is there any point to all of these early exit cases? For example, in
> > > ExecInitBitmapAnd, why exit early if initialization fails? Why not
> > > just plunge ahead and if initialization failed the caller will notice
> > > that and when we ExecEndNode some of the child node pointers will be
> > > NULL but who cares? The obvious disadvantage of this approach is that
> > > we're doing a bunch of unnecessary initialization, but we're also
> > > speeding up the common case where we don't need to abort by avoiding a
> > > branch that will rarely be taken. I'm not quite sure what the right
> > > thing to do is here.
> > I thought about this some and figured that adding the
> > is-CachedPlan-still-valid tests in the following places should suffice
> > after all:
> >
> > 1. In InitPlan() right after the top-level ExecInitNode() calls
> > 2. In ExecInit*() functions of Scan nodes, right after
> > ExecOpenScanRelation() calls
>
> After sleeping on this, I think we do need the checks after all the
> ExecInitNode() calls too, because we have many instances of the code
> like the following one:
>
> outerPlanState(gatherstate) = ExecInitNode(outerNode, estate, eflags);
> tupDesc = ExecGetResultType(outerPlanState(gatherstate));
> <some code that dereferences outDesc>
>
> If outerNode is a SeqScan and ExecInitSeqScan() returned early because
> ExecOpenScanRelation() detected that plan was invalidated, then
> tupDesc would be NULL in this case, causing the code to crash.
>
> Now one might say that perhaps we should only add the
> is-CachedPlan-valid test in the instances where there is an actual
> risk of such misbehavior, but that could lead to confusion, now or
> later. It seems better to add them after every ExecInitNode() call
> while we're inventing the notion, because doing so relieves the
> authors of future enhancements of the ExecInit*() routines from
> worrying about any of this.
>
> Attached 0003 should show how that turned out.
>
> Updated 0002 as mentioned in the previous reply -- setting pointers to
> NULL after freeing them more consistently across various ExecEnd*()
> routines and using the `if (pointer != NULL)` style over the `if
> (pointer)` more consistently.
>
> Updated 0001's commit message to remove the mention of its relation to
> any future commits. I intend to push it tomorrow.
Pushed that one. Here are the rebased patches.
0001 seems ready to me, but I'll wait a couple more days for others to
weigh in. Just to highlight a kind of change that others may have
differing opinions on, consider this hunk from the patch:
- MemoryContextDelete(node->aggcontext);
+ if (node->aggcontext != NULL)
+ {
+ MemoryContextDelete(node->aggcontext);
+ node->aggcontext = NULL;
+ }
...
+ ExecEndNode(outerPlanState(node));
+ outerPlanState(node) = NULL;
So the patch wants to enhance the consistency of setting the pointer
to NULL after freeing part. Robert mentioned his preference for doing
it in the patch, which I agree with.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Commits
-
Stamp 19beta1.
- 4b0bf0788b06 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Revert "Don't lock partitions pruned by initial pruning"
- 1722d5eb05d8 18.0 landed
-
Ensure first ModifyTable rel initialized if all are pruned
- 28317de723b6 18.0 cited
-
Fix bug in cbc127917 to handle nested Append correctly
- cbb9086c9ef6 18.0 landed
-
Remove unstable test suite added by 525392d57
- 4f1b6e5bb4fe 18.0 landed
-
Don't lock partitions pruned by initial pruning
- 525392d5727f 18.0 landed
-
Fix an oversight in cbc127917 to handle MERGE correctly
- 75dfde13639a 18.0 landed
-
Track unpruned relids to avoid processing pruned relations
- cbc127917e04 18.0 landed
-
Perform runtime initial pruning outside ExecInitNode()
- d47cbf474ecb 18.0 landed
-
Move PartitionPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt
- bb3ec16e14de 18.0 landed
-
Fix setrefs.c's failure to do expression processing on prune steps.
- bf826ea06297 18.0 cited
-
Remove obsolete executor cleanup code
- d060e921ea5a 17.0 landed
-
Revert "Move PartitionPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt"
- 5472743d9e85 16.0 landed
-
Move PartitioPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt
- ec386948948c 16.0 landed
-
Refactor and cleanup runtime partition prune code a little
- 297daa9d4353 15.0 landed
-
Remove some unnecessary fields from Plan trees.
- 52ed730d511b 12.0 cited
-
Remove more redundant relation locking during executor startup.
- f2343653f5b2 12.0 cited
-
Shut down Gather's children before shutting down Gather itself.
- acf555bc53ac 10.0 cited