Horton

Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning

Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-01-18T10:28:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 at 08:10, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 4:44 PM Simon Riggs
> <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 at 16:22, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is just a relatively simple example and I think there are
> > > probably a bunch of others. There are a lot of kinds of DDL that could
> > > be performed on a partition that gets pruned away: DROP INDEX is just
> > > one example.
> >
> > I haven't followed this in any detail, but this patch and its goal of
> > reducing the O(N) drag effect on partition execution time is very
> > important. Locking a long list of objects that then get pruned is very
> > wasteful, as the results show.
> >
> > Ideally, we want an O(1) algorithm for single partition access and DDL
> > is rare. So perhaps that is the starting point for a safe design -
> > invent a single lock or cache that allows us to check if the partition
> > hierarchy has changed in any way, and if so, replan, if not, skip
> > locks.
>
> Rearchitecting partition locking to be O(1) seems like a project of
> non-trivial complexity as Robert mentioned in a related email thread
> couple of years ago:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoYbtm1uuDne3rRp_uNA2RFiBwXX1ngj3RSLxOfc3oS7cQ%40mail.gmail.com

I agree, completely redesigning locking is a major project. But that
isn't what I suggested, which was to find an O(1) algorithm to solve
the safety issue. I'm sure there is an easy way to check one lock,
maybe a new one/new kind, rather than N.

Why does the safety issue exist? Why is it important to be able to
concurrently access parts of the hierarchy with DDL? Those are not
critical points.

If we asked them, most users would trade a 10x performance gain for
some restrictions on DDL. If anyone cares, make it an option, but most
people will use it.

Maybe force all DDL, or just DDL that would cause safety issues, to
update a hierarchy version number, so queries can tell whether they
need to replan. Don't know, just looking for an O(1) solution.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

Commits

  1. Stamp 19beta1.

  2. Revert "Don't lock partitions pruned by initial pruning"

  3. Ensure first ModifyTable rel initialized if all are pruned

  4. Fix bug in cbc127917 to handle nested Append correctly

  5. Remove unstable test suite added by 525392d57

  6. Don't lock partitions pruned by initial pruning

  7. Fix an oversight in cbc127917 to handle MERGE correctly

  8. Track unpruned relids to avoid processing pruned relations

  9. Perform runtime initial pruning outside ExecInitNode()

  10. Move PartitionPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt

  11. Fix setrefs.c's failure to do expression processing on prune steps.

  12. Remove obsolete executor cleanup code

  13. Revert "Move PartitionPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt"

  14. Move PartitioPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt

  15. Refactor and cleanup runtime partition prune code a little

  16. Remove some unnecessary fields from Plan trees.

  17. Remove more redundant relation locking during executor startup.

  18. Shut down Gather's children before shutting down Gather itself.