[PATCH] Deferrable unique constraints vs join removal -- bug?
От | Marti Raudsepp |
---|---|
Тема | [PATCH] Deferrable unique constraints vs join removal -- bug? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABRT9RC=RL2fdKyxY0+yUSOPM6k=guANqW019nWsPaa8ahnf7Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Deferrable unique constraints vs join removal -- bug?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi list, PostgreSQL 9.0 introduced the "join removal" feature for cases where an left join can't return more than one output row. This feature relies on checking whether a UNIQUE constraint exists on the joined column in the referenced table. However, there was another new feature in 9.0: deferrable unique constraints. It seems that the join removal code currently doesn't check whether the constraint is deferrable or not. Since deferrable unique constraints may contain duplicate rows in the course of a transaction, join removal changes the results returned from a query. This probably doesn't affect many real-world applications, but it seems wrong that a performance feature can affect results returned by a query. Test case: create table uniq (i int unique deferrable initially deferred); begin; insert into uniq values(1),(1); select count(*) from uniq a left join uniq b using (i); count ------- 2 An inner join performs as expected: marti=# select count(*) from uniq a inner join uniq b using (i); count ------- 4 ---- Attached is a patch with an attempt to fix it. I'm not at all sure this is the right approach, but it seems the cheapest way to make sure is walk through *all* rows in pg_constraint for the given table, since there is no index on pg_constraint.conindid. I'm not sure whether the cost of this check outweighs the usefulness of this patch. Catalog changes are a no-no for backported patches, right? Or should I just go ahead and create this index, and not worry about backporting? I'm also adding lots of includes to this file. Maybe unique_index_is_consistent() should be moved to another file instead? While passing by, I also added an unrelated check to check_functional_grouping() for the validity of the constraint. This isn't necessary for now (unique constraints are always valid), but seems useful just in case this changes in the future. Regards, Marti
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: