Re: How to retain lesser paths at add_path()? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kohei KaiGai
Subject Re: How to retain lesser paths at add_path()?
Date
Msg-id CAOP8fzYcCZDpc8tzO4qn-ggXf9K5PYhD7JnQS+UfaEgn4hrvtg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: How to retain lesser paths at add_path()?  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: How to retain lesser paths at add_path()?
List pgsql-hackers
The v2 patch is attached.

This adds two dedicated lists on the RelOptInfo to preserve lesser paths
if extension required to retain the path-node to be removed in usual manner.
These lesser paths are kept in the separated list, so it never expand the length
of pathlist and partial_pathlist. That was the arguable point in the discussion
at the last October.

The new hook is called just before the path-node removal operation, and
gives extension a chance for extra decision.
If extension considers the path-node to be removed can be used in the upper
path construction stage, they can return 'true' as a signal to preserve this
lesser path-node.
In case when same kind of path-node already exists in the preserved_pathlist
and the supplied lesser path-node is cheaper than the old one, extension can
remove the worse one arbitrarily to keep the length of preserved_pathlist.
(E.g, PG-Strom may need one GpuJoin path-node either pathlist or preserved-
pathlist for further opportunity of combined usage with GpuPreAgg path-node.
It just needs "the best GpuJoin path-node" somewhere, not two or more.)

Because PostgreSQL core has no information which preserved path-node can
be removed, extensions that uses path_removal_decision_hook() has responsibility
to keep the length of preserved_(partial_)pathlist reasonable.


BTW, add_path() now removes the lesser path-node by pfree(), not only detach
from the path-list. (IndexPath is an exception)
Does it really make sense? It only releases the path-node itself, so may not
release entire objects. So, efficiency of memory usage is limited. And
ForeignScan
/ CustomScan may references the path-node to be removed. It seems to me here
is no guarantee lesser path-nodes except for IndexPath nodes are safe
to release.

Best regards,

2020年1月11日(土) 21:27 Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>:
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 05:07:11PM +0900, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >The proposition I posted at 10th-Oct proposed to have a separate list to retain
> >lesser paths not to expand the path_list length, but here are no comments by
> >others at that time.
> >Indeed, the latest patch has not been updated yet.
> >Please wait for a few days. I'll refresh the patch again.
> >
>
> OK, thanks for the update. I've marked the patch as "waiting on author".
>
>
> regards
>
> --
> Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



--
HeteroDB, Inc / The PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@heterodb.com>

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Add FOREIGN to ALTER TABLE in pg_dump
Next
From: Vik Fearing
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] distinct aggregates within a window function WIP