Re: Parallel Seq Scan - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Parallel Seq Scan
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+0syoiaF=mJizofVfS=iy_S4C-nvKtyg1PbUirJBfc=Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel Seq Scan  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Parallel Seq Scan  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From what I understood by looking at code in this area, I think the check
> > params != estate->paramLI and code under it is required for parameters
> > that are setup by setup_unshared_param_list().  Now unshared params
> > are only created for Cursors and expressions that are passing a R/W
> > object pointer; for cursors we explicitly prohibit the parallel plan
> > generation
> > and I am not sure if it makes sense to generate parallel plans for
> > expressions
> > involving R/W object pointer, if we don't generate parallel plan where
> > expressions involve such parameters, then SerializeParamList() should not
> > be affected by the check mentioned by you.  Is by anychance, this is
> > happening because you are testing by forcing gather node on top of
> > all kind of plans?
>
> Yeah, but I think the scenario is legitimate.  When a query gets run
> from within PL/pgsql, parallelism is an option, at least as we have
> the code today.  So if a Gather were present, and the query used a
> parameter, then you could have this issue.  For example:
>
> SELECT * FROM bigtable WHERE unindexed_column = some_plpgsql_variable;
>

I don't think for such statements the control flow will set up an unshared
param list.  I have tried couple of such statements [1] and found that
always such parameters are set up by setup_param_list().  I think there
are only two possibilities which could lead to setting up of unshared params:

1. Usage of cursors - This is already prohibited for parallel-mode.
2. Usage of read-write-param - This only happens for expressions like
x := array_append(x, foo) (Refer exec_check_rw_parameter()).  Read-write
params are not used for SQL statements. So this also won't be used for
parallel-mode

There is a chance that I might be missing some case where unshared
params will be required for parallel-mode (as of today), but if not then
I think we can live without current changes.

[1] - 
1.
create or replace function parallel_func_params() returns integer
as $$
declare
    param_val int;
    ret_val int;
begin
     param_val := 1000;
     Select c1 into ret_val from t1 where c1 = param_val;
     return ret_val;
end;
$$ language plpgsql;

For such a query, it will go in setup_param_list()

2.
create or replace function parallel_func_params_1() returns integer
as $$
declare
    param_val int;
    ret_val int;
begin
     param_val := 1000;
     Execute 'Select count(c1) from t1 where c1 = $1' Into ret_val Using param_val;
     return ret_val;
end;
$$ language plpgsql;


3.
create or replace function parallel_func_params_2() returns integer
as $$
declare
    param_val int;
    ret_val int;
    row_var t1%ROWTYPE;
begin
     param_val := 1000;
     Select * into row_var from t1 where c1 = param_val;
     return ret_val;
end;
$$ language plpgsql;


With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport
Next
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting sothere’s message in log: FATAL: "could not createshared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permissiondenied”