Re: BUG #18314: PARALLEL UNSAFE function does not prevent parallel index build
От | jian he |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #18314: PARALLEL UNSAFE function does not prevent parallel index build |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CACJufxEGcGYg62qMzfkkx_0v5QWvM-vMwz9166hDpV8Emi0OZw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #18314: PARALLEL UNSAFE function does not prevent parallel index build (jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #18314: PARALLEL UNSAFE function does not prevent parallel index build
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 11:43 PM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 7:54 PM Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > In pg document, I found this: > > > > Also, a block containing an EXCEPTION clause effectively forms a subtransaction that can be rolled back without affectingthe outer transaction. > > > > So it will report error for this case even though we replace PARALLEL UNSAFE with PARALLEL SAFE. > > > > I think if PARALLEL UNSAFE is specified by users, PG internal should not choose to build index parallel, even if thefunction is > > too simply that can be transform to Const node. > > > > Attached patch will fix Alexander reported issue. I choose pass the raw index expression to is_parallel_safe(). > > The comments of RelationGetIndexExpressions() doesn't say it will return optimized expression. So I add a bool argumentto RelationGetIndexExpressions(). > > I don't decide to write a new function like RelationGetIndexRawExpression. I think the RelationGetIndexExpressions()is enough after adding a bool argument to indicate > > whether caller needing a raw index expression. > > > > But if users specify PARALLEL SAFE, like I said before, it also reports error. But I think it is another thing. Maybeit is reasonable? > > based on index_build's ereport(DEBUG1...) output information you patch disabled parallel index build for parallel safe function. after apply your patch: set log_min_messages to debug1; begin; drop table if exists btree_para_bld; CREATE TABLE btree_para_bld(i int); ALTER TABLE btree_para_bld SET (parallel_workers = 4); SET local max_parallel_maintenance_workers TO 4; CREATE or replace FUNCTION para_unsafe_f1() RETURNS int IMMUTABLE PARALLEL UNSAFE AS $$ BEGIN RETURN 0; END$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; CREATE or replace FUNCTION para_safe() RETURNS int IMMUTABLE PARALLEL UNSAFE AS $$ BEGIN RETURN 0; END$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; CREATE INDEX ON btree_para_bld((para_unsafe_f1())); CREATE INDEX ON btree_para_bld((para_safe())); commit; debug information: 2024-02-08 14:11:26.664 CST [33245] DEBUG: building index "btree_para_bld_para_unsafe_f1_idx" on table "btree_para_bld" serially 2024-02-08 14:11:26.664 CST [33245] DEBUG: index "btree_para_bld_para_unsafe_f1_idx" can safely use deduplication CREATE INDEX 2024-02-08 14:11:26.666 CST [33245] DEBUG: building index "btree_para_bld_para_safe_idx" on table "btree_para_bld" serially 2024-02-08 14:11:26.666 CST [33245] DEBUG: index "btree_para_bld_para_safe_idx" can safely use deduplication CREATE INDEX the problem entry point is_parallel_safe, i think.
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: