| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
c2a4078eb adjusted EXPLAIN ANALYZE to include BUFFERS by default, but
a few tests in select_into.sql neglected to add BUFFERS OFF. The
failing tests seem unlikely to ever access buffers during execution, but
they certainly could during planning.
Per buildfarm member kestrel, tayra and calliphoridae.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANNMO++W7MM8T0KyXN3ZheXXt-uLVM3aEtZd+WNfZ=obxffUiA@mail.gmail.com
|
|
The topic of turning EXPLAIN's BUFFERS option on with the ANALYZE option
has come up a few times over the past few years. In many ways, doing this
seems like a good idea as it may be more obvious to users why a given
query is running more slowly than they might expect. Also, from my own
(David's) personal experience, I've seen users posting to the mailing
lists with two identical plans, one slow and one fast asking why their
query is sometimes slow. In many cases, this is due to additional reads.
Having BUFFERS on by default may help reduce some of these questions, and
if not, make it more obvious to the user before they post, or save a
round-trip to the mailing list when additional I/O effort is the cause of
the slowness.
The general consensus is that we want BUFFERS on by default with
ANALYZE. However, there were more than zero concerns raised with doing
so. The primary reason against is the additional verbosity, making it
harder to read large plans. Another concern was that buffer information
isn't always useful so may not make sense to have it on by default.
It's currently December, so let's commit this to see if anyone comes
forward with a strong objection against making this change. We have over
half a year remaining in the v18 cycle where we could still easily consider
reverting this if someone were to come forward with a convincing enough
reason as to why doing this is a bad idea.
There were two patches independently submitted to achieve this goal, one
by me and the other by Guillaume. This commit is a mix of both of these
patches with some additional work done by me to adjust various
additional places in the documentation which include EXPLAIN ANALYZE
output.
Author: Guillaume Lelarge, David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas, Greg Sabino Mullane, Michael Christofides
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANNMO++W7MM8T0KyXN3ZheXXt-uLVM3aEtZd+WNfZ=obxffUiA@mail.gmail.com
|
|
The idea behind this patch is to make it possible to run individual
test scripts without running the entire core test suite. Making all
the scripts completely independent would involve a massive rewrite,
and would probably be worse for coverage of things like concurrent DDL.
So this patch just does what seems practical with limited changes.
The net effect is that any test script can be run after running
limited earlier dependencies:
* all scripts depend on test_setup
* many scripts depend on create_index
* other dependencies are few in number, and are documented in
the parallel_schedule file.
To accomplish this, I chose a small number of commonly-used tables
and moved their creation and filling into test_setup. Later scripts
are expected not to modify these tables' data contents, for fear of
affecting other scripts' results. Also, our former habit of declaring
all C functions in one place is now gone in favor of declaring them
where they're used, if that's just one script, or in test_setup if
necessary.
There's more that could be done to remove some of the remaining
inter-script dependencies, but significantly more-invasive changes
would be needed, and at least for now it doesn't seem worth it.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
IF NOT EXISTS was ignored when specified in an EXPLAIN query for CREATE
MATERIALIZED VIEW or CREATE TABLE AS. Hence, if this clause was
specified, the caller would get a failure if the relation already
exists instead of a success with a NOTICE message.
This commit makes the behavior of IF NOT EXISTS in EXPLAIN consistent
with the non-EXPLAIN'd DDL queries, preventing a failure with IF NOT
EXISTS if the relation to-be-created already exists. The skip is done
before the SELECT query used for the relation is planned or executed,
and a "dummy" plan is generated instead depending on the format used by
EXPLAIN.
Author: Bharath Rupireddy
Reviewed-by: Zhijie Hou, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALj2ACVa3oJ9O_wcGd+FtHWZds04dEKcakxphGz5POVgD4wC7Q@mail.gmail.com
|
|
As per discussion with Peter Eisentraunt, the SQL standard specifies
that any tuple insertion done as part of CREATE TABLE AS happens without
any extra ACL check, so it makes little sense to keep a check for INSERT
privileges when using WITH DATA. Materialized views are not part of the
standard, but similarly, this check can be confusing as this refers to
an access check on a table created within the same command as the one
that would insert data into this table.
This commit removes the INSERT privilege check for WITH DATA, the
default, that 846005e removed partially, but only for WITH NO DATA.
Author: Bharath Rupireddy
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
When specified, WITH NO DATA does not insert any data into the relation
created, so skip checking for the insert permissions. With WITH DATA or
WITH NO DATA, it is always required for the user to have CREATE
privileges on the schema targeted for the relation.
Note that plain CREATE TABLE AS or CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW queries have
begun to work accidentally without INSERT privilege checks as of
874fe3ae, while using EXECUTE or EXPLAIN ANALYZE would fail with the ACL
check, so this makes the behavior for all the command flavors consistent
with each other. This is arguably a bug fix, but there have been no
complaints about the current behavior either so stable branches are not
changed.
While on it, document properly the privileges requirements for each
commands with more tests for all the scenarios possible, and avoid a
useless bulk-insert allocation when using WITH NO DATA.
Author: Bharath Rupireddy
Reviewed-by: Anastasia Lubennikova, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALj2ACWc3N8j0_9nMPz9wcAUnVcdKHzFdDZJ3hVFNEbqtcyG9w@mail.gmail.com
|
|
The relation creation is done at executor startup, however the main
regression test suite is lacking scenarios where no data is inserted
which is something that can happen when using EXECUTE or EXPLAIN with
CREATE TABLE AS and WITH NO DATA.
Some patches are worked on to reshape the way CTAS relations are
created, so this makes sure that we do not miss some query patterns
already supported.
Reported-by: Andreas Karlsson
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Andreas Karlsson
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
Many of the objects we create during the regression tests are put in the
public schema, so that using the same names in different regression tests
creates a hazard of test failures if any two such scripts run concurrently.
This patch cleans up a bunch of latent hazards of that sort, as well as two
live hazards.
The current situation in this regard is far worse than it was a year or two
back, because practically all of the partitioning-related test cases have
reused table names with enthusiasm. I despaired of cleaning up that mess
within the five most-affected tests (create_table, alter_table, insert,
update, inherit); fortunately those don't run concurrently.
Other than partitioning problems, most of the issues boil down to using
names like "foo", "bar", "tmp", etc, without thought for the fact that
other test scripts might use similar names concurrently. I've made an
effort to make all such names more specific.
One of the live hazards was that commit 7421f4b8 caused with.sql to
create a table named "test", conflicting with a similarly-named table
in alter_table.sql; this was exposed in the buildfarm recently.
The other one was that join.sql and transactions.sql both create tables
named "foo" and "bar"; but join.sql's uses of those names date back
only to December or so.
Since commit 7421f4b8 was back-patched to v10, back-patch a minimal
fix for that problem. The rest of this is just future-proofing.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
To ensure that "make installcheck" can be used safely against an existing
installation, we need to be careful about what global object names
(database, role, and tablespace names) we use; otherwise we might
accidentally clobber important objects. There's been a weak consensus that
test databases should have names including "regression", and that test role
names should start with "regress_", but we didn't have any particular rule
about tablespace names; and neither of the other rules was followed with
any consistency either.
This commit moves us a long way towards having a hard-and-fast rule that
regression test databases must have names including "regression", and that
test role and tablespace names must start with "regress_". It's not
completely there because I did not touch some test cases in rolenames.sql
that test creation of special role names like "session_user". That will
require some rethinking of exactly what we want to test, whereas the intent
of this patch is just to hit all the cases in which the needed renamings
are cosmetic.
There is no enforcement mechanism in this patch either, but if we don't
add one we can expect that the tests will soon be violating the convention
again. Again, that's not such a cosmetic change and it will require
discussion. (But I did use a quick-hack enforcement patch to find these
cases.)
Discussion: <[email protected]>
|
|
Previously, these commands always planned the given query and went through
executor startup before deciding not to actually run the query if WITH NO
DATA is specified. This behavior is problematic for pg_dump because it
may cause errors to be raised that we would rather not see before a
REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW command is issued. See for example bug #13907
from Marian Krucina. This change is not sufficient to fix that particular
bug, because we also need to tweak pg_dump to issue the REFRESH later,
but it's a necessary step on the way.
A user-visible side effect of doing things this way is that the returned
command tag for WITH NO DATA cases will now be "CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW"
or "CREATE TABLE AS", not "SELECT 0". We could preserve the old behavior
but it would take more code, and arguably that was just an implementation
artifact not intended behavior anyhow.
In 9.5 and HEAD, also get rid of the static variable CreateAsReladdr, which
was trouble waiting to happen; there is not any prohibition on nested
CREATE commands.
Back-patch to 9.3 where CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW was introduced.
Michael Paquier and Tom Lane
Report: <[email protected]>
|
|
We don't support any parallel write operations at present, so choosing
a parallel plan causes us to error out. Also, add a new regression
test that uses EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT INTO; if we'd had this previously,
force_parallel_mode testing would have caught this issue.
Mithun Cy and Robert Haas
|
|
Making this operation look like a utility statement seems generally a good
idea, and particularly so in light of the desire to provide command
triggers for utility statements. The original choice of representing it as
SELECT with an IntoClause appendage had metastasized into rather a lot of
places, unfortunately, so that this patch is a great deal more complicated
than one might at first expect.
In particular, keeping EXPLAIN working for SELECT INTO and CREATE TABLE AS
subcommands required restructuring some EXPLAIN-related APIs. Add-on code
that calls ExplainOnePlan or ExplainOneUtility, or uses
ExplainOneQuery_hook, will need adjustment.
Also, the cases PREPARE ... SELECT INTO and CREATE RULE ... SELECT INTO,
which formerly were accepted though undocumented, are no longer accepted.
The PREPARE case can be replaced with use of CREATE TABLE AS EXECUTE.
The CREATE RULE case doesn't seem to have much real-world use (since the
rule would work only once before failing with "table already exists"),
so we'll not bother with that one.
Both SELECT INTO and CREATE TABLE AS still return a command tag of
"SELECT nnnn". There was some discussion of returning "CREATE TABLE nnnn",
but for the moment backwards compatibility wins the day.
Andres Freund and Tom Lane
|
|
As previously coded, the QueryDesc's dest pointer was left dangling
(pointing at an already-freed receiver object) after ExecutorEnd. It's a
bit astonishing that it took us this long to notice, and I'm not sure that
the known problem case with SQL functions is the only one. Fix it by
saving and restoring the original receiver pointer, which seems the most
bulletproof way of ensuring any related bugs are also covered.
Per bug #6379 from Paul Ramsey. Back-patch to 8.4 where the current
handling of SELECT INTO was introduced.
|
|
In the normal course of events, this matters only if ALTER DEFAULT
PRIVILEGES has been used to revoke default INSERT permission. Whether
or not the new behavior is more or less likely to be what the user wants
when dealing only with the built-in privilege facilities is arguable,
but it's clearly better when using a loadable module such as sepgsql
that may use the hook in ExecCheckRTPerms to enforce additional
permissions checks.
KaiGai Kohei, reviewed by Albe Laurenz
|
|
at end of files.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its starting to actually take shape and look as expected...
|
