Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions
От | Amit Langote |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+HiwqGRsCOUk7XmN6dnCRnNz8UMfcY0BGno-Dn=5fXQ2xjQBw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions
Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 1:11 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 12:54 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 6:18 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >> ... One more thing: maybe we should rethink where to put > > >> extraUpdatedCols. Between the facts that it's not used for > > >> actual permissions checks, and that it's calculated by the > > >> rewriter not parser, it doesn't seem like it really belongs > > >> in RelPermissionInfo. Should we keep it in RangeTblEntry? > > >> Should it go somewhere else entirely? I'm just speculating, > > >> but now is a good time to think about it. > > > > > I've kept extraUpdatedCols in RangeTblEntry in the latest patch, but > > > perhaps it makes sense to put that into Query? > > > > That's got morally the same problem as keeping it in RangeTblEntry: > > those are structures that are built by the parser. Hacking on them > > later isn't terribly clean. > > > > I wonder if it could make sense to postpone calculation of the > > extraUpdatedCols out of the rewriter and into the planner, with > > the idea that it ends up $someplace in the finished plan tree > > but isn't part of the original parsetree. > > Looking at PlannerInfo.update_colnos, something that's needed for > execution but not in Query, maybe we can make preprocess_targetlist() > also populate an PlannerInfo.extraUpdatedCols? > > > A different aspect of this is that putting it in Query doesn't > > make a lot of sense unless there is only one version of the > > bitmap per Query. In simple UPDATEs that would be true, but > > I think that inherited/partitioned UPDATEs would need one per > > result relation, which is likely the reason it got dumped in > > RangeTblEntry to begin with. > > Yeah, so if we have PlannerInfos.extraUpdatedCols as the root table's > version of that, grouping_planner() can make copies for all result > relations and put the list in ModifyTable. I tried in the attached 0004. ModifyTable gets a new member extraUpdatedColsBitmaps, which is List of Bitmapset "nodes". Actually, List of Bitmapsets turned out to be something that doesn't just-work with our Node infrastructure, which I found out thanks to -DWRITE_READ_PARSE_PLAN_TREES. So, I had to go ahead and add first-class support for copy/equal/write/read support for Bitmapsets, such that writeNode() can write appropriately labeled versions of them and nodeRead() can read them as Bitmapsets. That's done in 0003. I didn't actually go ahead and make *all* Bitmapsets in the plan trees to be Nodes, but maybe 0003 can be expanded to do that. We won't need to make gen_node_support.pl emit *_BITMAPSET_FIELD() blurbs then; can just use *_NODE_FIELD(). -- Thanks, Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: