Re: Postgres 16.1 - Bug: cache entry already complete

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 00:01, Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> wrote:
>     if (extra->inner_unique &&
>         (inner_path->param_info == NULL ||
>          list_length(inner_path->param_info->ppi_clauses) <
>          list_length(extra->restrictlist)))
>         return NULL;

I see. So it worked fine until Tom's " Make Vars be outer-join-aware." stuff.

9e215378d fixed this already and looks like I came to the same
conclusion about the cache completion issue back then too.

> But why does the code above fail to capture the problematic query?  It
> turns out that inner_path->param_info->ppi_clauses contains cloned
> clauses, i.e. multiple versions of the same clause in order to cope with
> outer join identity 3.  And this causes the above code to give incorrect
> conclusions about the length of 'ppi_clauses'.  And this also explains
> why this issue only occurs in v16.
>
> As a clause's serial number is unique within the current PlannerInfo
> context, and multiple clones of the same clause have the same serial
> number, it seems to me that it's more correct to calculate the length of
> ppi_clauses by:
>
>     bms_num_members(inner_path->param_info->ppi_serials)
>
> So I think maybe we can fix this issue with the attached patch.

hmm, I'd need to study what Tom's been changing around this. I don't
have a good handle on which qual lists can have duplicated quals.

In [1], you can see I took the inspiration for that fix from
generate_mergejoin_paths().  I don't yet know if it's just ppi_clauses
that can have duplicates or if there's a similar hazard in the
list_length() checks in generate_mergejoin_paths()


> BTW, the SingleRow in explain seems quite handy.  I wonder if we can
> keep it.

If the fix is to just disable Memoize when the ppi_clauses don't cover
the entire join condition, then the Inner Unique from the parent
nested loop tells us this. Isn't that enough?  The reason I added
SingleRow was because in the patch I posted, I'd made it so SingleRow
could be false in cases where Inner Unique was true.

David

[1] https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrWsfc3naVQZxS0efU%3DvJOA7dG3NV7fGhkgo2%3DJ38OEpg%40mail.gmail.com