Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 8:36 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote: > So it is possible for the executor to try to run a plan that has > become invalid since it was created, so... I'm not sure what the "so what" here is. > One perhaps crazy idea [1]: > > What if we remove AcquireExecutorLocks() and move the responsibility > of taking the remaining necessary locks into the executor (those on > any inheritance children that are added during planning and thus not > accounted for by AcquirePlannerLocks()), like the patch already does, > but don't make it also check if the plan has become invalid, which it > can't do anyway unless it's from a CachedPlan. That means we instead > let the executor throw any errors that occur when trying to either > initialize the plan because of the changes that have occurred to the > objects referenced in the plan, like what is happening in the above > example. If that case is going to be rare anway, why spend energy on > checking the validity and replan, especially if that's not an easy > thing to do as we're finding out. In the above example, we could say > that it's a user error to create a rule like that, so it should not > happen in practice, but when it does, the executor seems to deal with > it correctly by refusing to execute a broken plan . Perhaps it's more > worthwhile to make the executor behave correctly in face of plan > invalidation than teach the rest of the system to deal with the > executor throwing its hands up when it runs into an invalid plan? > Again, I think this may be a crazy line of thinking but just wanted to > get it out there. I don't know whether this is crazy or not. I think there are two issues. One, the set of checks that we have right now might not be complete, and we might just not have realized that because it happens infrequently enough that we haven't found all the bugs. If that's so, then a change like this could be a good thing, because it might force us to fix stuff we should be fixing anyway. I have a feeling that some of the checks you hit there were added as bug fixes long after the code was written originally, so my confidence that we don't have more bugs isn't especially high. And two, it matters a lot how frequent the errors will be in practice. I think we normally try to replan rather than let a stale plan be used because we want to not fail, because users don't like failure. If the design you propose here would make failures more (or less) frequent, then that's a problem (or awesome). -- Robert Haas 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