Re: Defer selection of asynchronous subplans until the executor initialization stage - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zhihong Yu
Subject Re: Defer selection of asynchronous subplans until the executor initialization stage
Date
Msg-id CALNJ-vTdGQ-AAM8k7DxAdADYVRFR3FOiyb9ZshkWwyYq2-nQew@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Defer selection of asynchronous subplans until the executor initialization stage  (Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>)
Responses Re: Defer selection of asynchronous subplans until the executor initialization stage
List pgsql-hackers


On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 7:41 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 07:43:48PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 1:58 AM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 9:43 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> > > This patch seems to be causing the planner to crash.
> > > Here's a query reduced from sqlsmith.
> > >
> > > | explain SELECT 1 FROM information_schema.constraint_column_usage WHERE 1 <= pg_trigger_depth();
> > >
> > > Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> >
> > Reproduced.  Will look into this.
>
> I think the cause of this is that mark_async_capable_plan() failed to
> take into account that when the given path is a SubqueryScanPath or
> ForeignPath, the given corresponding plan might include a gating
> Result node that evaluates pseudoconstant quals.  My oversight.  :-(
> Attached is a patch for fixing that.  I think v14 has the same issue,
> so I think we need backpatching.

Thanks - this seems to resolve the issue.

On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 06:46:25AM -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> Looking at the second hunk of the patch:
>                 FdwRoutine *fdwroutine = path->parent->fdwroutine;
> ...
> +               if (IsA(plan, Result))
> +                   return false;
>
> It seems the check of whether plan is a Result node can be lifted ahead of
> the switch statement (i.e. to the beginning of mark_async_capable_plan).
>
> This way, we don't have to check for every case in the switch statement.

I think you misread it - the other branch says: if (*not* IsA())

No, I didn't misread:

            if (!IsA(plan, Result) &&
                mark_async_capable_plan(plan,
                                        ((ProjectionPath *) path)->subpath))
                return true;
            return false;

If the plan is Result node, false would be returned.
So the check can be lifted to the beginning of the func.

Cheers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: Defer selection of asynchronous subplans until the executor initialization stage
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning