Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kohei KaiGai
Subject Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem
Date
Msg-id CADyhKSUPFQDX4f4mtyNmFk6TpjUz+8=zkHFD5otNZ_+cRFw3kg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem
List pgsql-hackers
2011/10/19 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:
>>> I tried to reproduce the scenario with enough small from/join_collapse_limit
>>> (typically 1), but it allows to push down qualifiers into the least scan plan.
>
>> Hmm, you're right.  LIMIT 1000000000 prevents qual pushdown, but
>> hitting from_collapse_limit/join_collapse_limit apparently doesn't.  I
>> could have sworn I've seen this work the other way, but I guess not.
>
> No, the collapse_limit variables are entirely unrelated to subquery
> flattening, or to qual pushdown for that matter.  They only restrict the
> number of join paths we consider.  And we will attempt to push down
> quals into an unflattened subquery, too, if it looks safe.  See
> subquery_is_pushdown_safe, qual_is_pushdown_safe, etc in allpaths.c.
>
I tried to observe the behavior with a bit modification of is_simple_subquery
that become to return 'false' always.
(It is a simulation if and when a view with security_barrier would be given.)

The expected behavior is to keep sub-query without flatten.
However, the externally provided qualifiers are correctly pushed down.

Do we need to focus on the code around above functions rather than
distribute_qual_to_rels, to prevent undesirable pushing-down across
security barrier?

postgres=# CREATE VIEW v1 AS SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a > 100;
CREATE VIEW
postgres=# CREATE VIEW v2 AS SELECT * FROM t2 JOIN t3 ON x = s;
CREATE VIEW
postgres=# EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM v1 WHERE b = 'bbb';                    QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------Seq Scan on t1  (cost=0.00..28.45 rows=2 width=36)  Filter: ((a >
100)AND (b = 'bbb'::text)) 
(2 rows)
postgres=# EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM v2 WHERE t = 'ttt';                          QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------Hash Join  (cost=25.45..52.73 rows=37 width=72)  Hash
Cond:(t2.x = t3.s)  ->  Seq Scan on t2  (cost=0.00..22.30 rows=1230 width=36)  ->  Hash  (cost=25.38..25.38 rows=6
width=36)       ->  Seq Scan on t3  (cost=0.00..25.38 rows=6 width=36)              Filter: (t = 'ttt'::text) 
(6 rows)

Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer
Next
From: Marti Raudsepp
Date:
Subject: [PATCH] Deferrable unique constraints vs join removal -- bug?