Thread: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
[HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Rushabh Lathia
Date:
Consider the below test;
CREATE TABLE tab ( a int primary key);
SELECT *
FROM pg_constraint pc,
CAST(CASE WHEN pc.contype IN ('f','u','p') THEN generate_series(1, array_upper(pc.conkey, 1)) ELSE NULL END AS int) AS position;
Above query is failing with "set-valued function called in context that cannot
accept a set". But if I remove the CASE from the query then it working just good.
Like:
SELECT *
FROM pg_constraint pc,
CAST(generate_series(1, array_upper(pc.conkey, 1)) AS int) AS position;
This started failing with 69f4b9c85f168ae006929eec44fc44d569e846b9. It seems
check_srf_call_placement() sets the hasTargetSRFs flag and but when the SRFs
at the rtable ofcourse this flag doesn't get set. It seems like missing something
their, but I might be completely wrong as not quire aware of this area.
Rushabh Lathia
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commitid: 69f4b9c85f)
From
"David G. Johnston"
Date:
Consider the below test;CREATE TABLE tab ( a int primary key);SELECT *FROM pg_constraint pc,CAST(CASE WHEN pc.contype IN ('f','u','p') THEN generate_series(1, array_upper(pc.conkey, 1)) ELSE NULL END AS int) AS position;Above query is failing with "set-valued function called in context that cannotaccept a set". But if I remove the CASE from the query then it working just good.Like:SELECT *FROM pg_constraint pc,CAST(generate_series(1, array_upper(pc.conkey, 1)) AS int) AS position;This started failing with 69f4b9c85f168ae006929eec44fc44d569e846b9. It seems check_srf_call_placement() sets the hasTargetSRFs flag and but when the SRFsat the rtable ofcourse this flag doesn't get set. It seems like missing somethingtheir, but I might be completely wrong as not quire aware of this area.
I'm a bit surprised that your query actually works...and without delving into source code its hard to explain why it should/shouldn't or whether the recent SRF work was intended to impact it.
In any case the more idiomatic way of writing your query these days (since 9.4 came out) is:
SELECT *
FROM pg_constraint pc
LEFT JOIN LATERAL generate_series(1, case when contype in ('f','p','u') then array_upper(pc.conkey, 1) else 0 end) gs ON true;
generate_series is smart enough to return an empty set (instead of erroring out) when provided with (1,0) as arguments.
David J.
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commitid: 69f4b9c85f)
From
"David G. Johnston"
Date:
In any case the more idiomatic way of writing your query these days (since 9.4 came out) is:SELECT *FROM pg_constraint pcLEFT JOIN LATERAL generate_series(1, case when contype in ('f','p','u') then array_upper(pc.conkey, 1) else 0 end) gs ON true;
Supposedly should work back to 9.3, mis-remembered when LATERAL was released.
David J.
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commitid: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Rushabh Lathia
Date:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 3:43 AM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
Consider the below test;CREATE TABLE tab ( a int primary key);SELECT *FROM pg_constraint pc,CAST(CASE WHEN pc.contype IN ('f','u','p') THEN generate_series(1, array_upper(pc.conkey, 1)) ELSE NULL END AS int) AS position;Above query is failing with "set-valued function called in context that cannotaccept a set". But if I remove the CASE from the query then it working just good.Like:SELECT *FROM pg_constraint pc,CAST(generate_series(1, array_upper(pc.conkey, 1)) AS int) AS position;This started failing with 69f4b9c85f168ae006929eec44fc44d569e846b9. It seems check_srf_call_placement() sets the hasTargetSRFs flag and but when the SRFsat the rtable ofcourse this flag doesn't get set. It seems like missing somethingtheir, but I might be completely wrong as not quire aware of this area.I'm a bit surprised that your query actually works...and without delving into source code its hard to explain why it should/shouldn't or whether the recent SRF work was intended to impact it.In any case the more idiomatic way of writing your query these days (since 9.4 came out) is:SELECT *FROM pg_constraint pcLEFT JOIN LATERAL generate_series(1, case when contype in ('f','p','u') then array_upper(pc.conkey, 1) else 0 end) gs ON true;generate_series is smart enough to return an empty set (instead of erroring out) when provided with (1,0) as arguments.
Thanks for the providing work-around query and I also understood your point.
At the same time reason to raise this issue was, because this was working before
69f4b9c85f168ae006929eec44fc44 d569e846b9 commit and now its throwing
an error. So whether its intended or query started failing because of some
bug introduced with the commit.
Issues is reproducible when query re-written with LEFT JOIN LATERAL and I
continue to use CASE statement.
SELECT *
FROM pg_constraint pc
LEFT JOIN LATERAL CAST((CASE WHEN pc.contype IN ('f','u','p') THEN generate_series(1, array_upper(pc.conkey, 1)) ELSE NULL END) AS int) gs ON true;
ERROR: set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set
David J.
Rushabh Lathia
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commitid: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Andres Freund
Date:
Hi, On 2017-01-27 17:58:04 +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > Consider the below test; > > CREATE TABLE tab ( a int primary key); > > SELECT * > FROM pg_constraint pc, > CAST(CASE WHEN pc.contype IN ('f','u','p') THEN generate_series(1, > array_upper(pc.conkey, 1)) ELSE NULL END AS int) AS position; > > Above query is failing with "set-valued function called in context that > cannot > accept a set". I think that's correct. Functions in FROM are essentially a shorthand for ROWS FROM(). And ROWS FROM doesn't allow arbitrary expressions. It works if you remove the CASE because then it's a valid ROWS FROM content. If, I didn't check, that worked previously, I think that was more accident than intent. > But if I remove the CASE from the query then it working just > good. > > Like: > > SELECT * > FROM pg_constraint pc, > CAST(generate_series(1, array_upper(pc.conkey, 1)) AS int) AS position; This IMO shouldn't work either due to the CAST. But indeed it does. > This started failing with 69f4b9c85f168ae006929eec44fc44d569e846b9. It seems > check_srf_call_placement() sets the hasTargetSRFs flag and but when the SRFs > at the rtable ofcourse this flag doesn't get set. It seems like missing > something > their, but I might be completely wrong as not quire aware of this area. That's right, because it's not in the targetlist. Regards, Andres
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-01-27 17:58:04 +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote: >> SELECT * >> FROM pg_constraint pc, >> CAST(CASE WHEN pc.contype IN ('f','u','p') THEN generate_series(1, >> array_upper(pc.conkey, 1)) ELSE NULL END AS int) AS position; >> >> Above query is failing with "set-valued function called in context that >> cannot accept a set". > I think that's correct. Functions in FROM are essentially a shorthand > for ROWS FROM(). And ROWS FROM doesn't allow arbitrary expressions. No, but it allows whatever looks syntactically like a function, including casts. IIRC, we made func_expr work that way ages ago to deflect complaints that it wasn't very clear why some things-that-look-like- functions were allowed in CREATE INDEX and others not. > If, I didn't check, that worked previously, I think that was more > accident than intent. Yeah, probably. But are we prepared to break working queries? As I understood it, the agreement on this whole tlist-SRF change was that we would not change any behavior that wasn't ill-defined. We could probably fix this with the modification that was discussed previously, to allow FunctionScan nodes to project a scalar tlist from the outputs of their SRFs. regards, tom lane
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commitid: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Andres Freund
Date:
Hi, On 2017-01-30 16:55:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2017-01-27 17:58:04 +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > >> SELECT * > >> FROM pg_constraint pc, > >> CAST(CASE WHEN pc.contype IN ('f','u','p') THEN generate_series(1, > >> array_upper(pc.conkey, 1)) ELSE NULL END AS int) AS position; > >> > >> Above query is failing with "set-valued function called in context that > >> cannot accept a set". > > > I think that's correct. Functions in FROM are essentially a shorthand > > for ROWS FROM(). And ROWS FROM doesn't allow arbitrary expressions. > > No, but it allows whatever looks syntactically like a function, including > casts. IIRC, we made func_expr work that way ages ago to deflect > complaints that it wasn't very clear why some things-that-look-like- > functions were allowed in CREATE INDEX and others not. But given e.g. the above example that's just about no limitation at all, because you can nest nearly arbitrarily complex things within the expression. > > If, I didn't check, that worked previously, I think that was more > > accident than intent. > > Yeah, probably. Really looks that way. I think it only works that way because we hit the recovery branch for:/* * Normally the passed expression tree will be a FuncExprState, since the * grammar only allows a functioncall at the top level of a table * function reference. However, if the function doesn't return set then * the plannermight have replaced the function call via constant-folding * or inlining. So if we see any other kind of expressionnode, execute * it via the general ExecEvalExpr() code; the only difference is that we * don't get a chance topass a special ReturnSetInfo to any functions * buried in the expression. */ which does a normal ExecEvalExpr() whenever the expression to be evaluated isn't a FuncExpr. At the very least I think we need to amend that paragraph explaining that there's a bunch of other cases it can be hit. And add tests for it. > But are we prepared to break working queries? Within some limits, we imo should be. > As I understood it, the agreement on this whole tlist-SRF change > was that we would not change any behavior that wasn't ill-defined. I'd argue that behaviour that only worked through some edge case is kinda ill defined ;) (and no, I'm not that serious) > We could probably fix this with the modification that was discussed > previously, to allow FunctionScan nodes to project a scalar tlist > from the outputs of their SRFs. Hm. I'm not quite following. Could you expand? Greetings, Andres Freund
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-01-30 16:55:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> No, but it allows whatever looks syntactically like a function, including >> casts. IIRC, we made func_expr work that way ages ago to deflect >> complaints that it wasn't very clear why some things-that-look-like- >> functions were allowed in CREATE INDEX and others not. > But given e.g. the above example that's just about no limitation at all, > because you can nest nearly arbitrarily complex things within the > expression. Yeah, exactly. But that's true anyway because even if it was syntactically a plain function, it might've been a SQL function that the planner chooses to inline. >> But are we prepared to break working queries? > Within some limits, we imo should be. In this case I think the argument for rejecting is pretty darn weak; it's an arbitrary implementation restriction, not anything with much principle to it. >> We could probably fix this with the modification that was discussed >> previously, to allow FunctionScan nodes to project a scalar tlist >> from the outputs of their SRFs. > Hm. I'm not quite following. Could you expand? Make it work like Agg and WindowFunc. To wit, dump the actually special function calls (the set-returning functions) into a list that's internal to the FunctionScan node, and then anything above those goes into scalar expressions in the node's tlist, which refer to the SRF outputs using Vars or things morally equivalent to Vars. This would not support nested SRFs in FROM, but that case has always failed and I've heard no field requests to make it work, so I don't feel bad about keeping that restriction. regards, tom lane
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commitid: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2017-01-30 17:24:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Make it work like Agg and WindowFunc. To wit, dump the actually special > function calls (the set-returning functions) into a list that's internal > to the FunctionScan node, and then anything above those goes into scalar > expressions in the node's tlist, which refer to the SRF outputs using > Vars or things morally equivalent to Vars. Hm. That should be fairly doable. (I'd advocate very strongly against building that list via ExecInitExpr, but that's an implementation detail). We'd evaluate SRFs early, but that's just consistent with targetlist SRFs. Wonder if we there's an argument to be made for implementing this roughly similarly to split_pathtarget_at_srf - instead of injecting a ProjectSet node we'd add a FunctionScan node below a Result node. - Andres
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > Wonder if we there's an argument to be made for implementing this > roughly similarly to split_pathtarget_at_srf - instead of injecting a > ProjectSet node we'd add a FunctionScan node below a Result node. Yeah, possibly. That would have the advantage of avoiding an ExecProject step when the SRFs aren't buried, which would certainly be the expected case. If you don't want to make ExecInitExpr responsible, then the planner would have to do something like split_pathtarget_at_srf anyway to decompose the expressions, no matter which executor representation we use. regards, tom lane
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commitid: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: >> Wonder if we there's an argument to be made for implementing this >> roughly similarly to split_pathtarget_at_srf - instead of injecting a >> ProjectSet node we'd add a FunctionScan node below a Result node. > > Yeah, possibly. That would have the advantage of avoiding an ExecProject > step when the SRFs aren't buried, which would certainly be the expected > case. > > If you don't want to make ExecInitExpr responsible, then the planner would > have to do something like split_pathtarget_at_srf anyway to decompose the > expressions, no matter which executor representation we use. Did we do anything about this? Are we going to? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> If you don't want to make ExecInitExpr responsible, then the planner would >> have to do something like split_pathtarget_at_srf anyway to decompose the >> expressions, no matter which executor representation we use. > Did we do anything about this? Are we going to? No, and I think we should. Is it on the v10 open items list? regards, tom lane
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commitid: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Stephen Frost
Date:
Tom, all, * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> If you don't want to make ExecInitExpr responsible, then the planner would > >> have to do something like split_pathtarget_at_srf anyway to decompose the > >> expressions, no matter which executor representation we use. > > > Did we do anything about this? Are we going to? > > No, and I think we should. Is it on the v10 open items list? Wasn't, I've added it now: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_10_Open_Items Thanks! Stephen
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commitid: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2017-03-09 13:34:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > >> Wonder if we there's an argument to be made for implementing this > >> roughly similarly to split_pathtarget_at_srf - instead of injecting a > >> ProjectSet node we'd add a FunctionScan node below a Result node. > > > > Yeah, possibly. That would have the advantage of avoiding an ExecProject > > step when the SRFs aren't buried, which would certainly be the expected > > case. > > > > If you don't want to make ExecInitExpr responsible, then the planner would > > have to do something like split_pathtarget_at_srf anyway to decompose the > > expressions, no matter which executor representation we use. > > Did we do anything about this? Are we going to? Working on a patch. - Andres
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:49:46AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-03-09 13:34:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > >> Wonder if we there's an argument to be made for implementing this > > >> roughly similarly to split_pathtarget_at_srf - instead of injecting a > > >> ProjectSet node we'd add a FunctionScan node below a Result node. > > > > > > Yeah, possibly. That would have the advantage of avoiding an ExecProject > > > step when the SRFs aren't buried, which would certainly be the expected > > > case. > > > > > > If you don't want to make ExecInitExpr responsible, then the planner would > > > have to do something like split_pathtarget_at_srf anyway to decompose the > > > expressions, no matter which executor representation we use. > > > > Did we do anything about this? Are we going to? > > Working on a patch. [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Andres, since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
Re: Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause(Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2017-04-05 02:47:55 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:49:46AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-03-09 13:34:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > > >> Wonder if we there's an argument to be made for implementing this > > > >> roughly similarly to split_pathtarget_at_srf - instead of injecting a > > > >> ProjectSet node we'd add a FunctionScan node below a Result node. > > > > > > > > Yeah, possibly. That would have the advantage of avoiding an ExecProject > > > > step when the SRFs aren't buried, which would certainly be the expected > > > > case. > > > > > > > > If you don't want to make ExecInitExpr responsible, then the planner would > > > > have to do something like split_pathtarget_at_srf anyway to decompose the > > > > expressions, no matter which executor representation we use. > > > > > > Did we do anything about this? Are we going to? > > > > Working on a patch. > > [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Andres, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a > v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of > this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed > well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts > toward speedy resolution. Thanks. I've a very preliminary patch. I'd like to only start polishing it up once the code freeze is over, so I can work on getting some patches in - note that I myself have no pending patches. Once frozen I'll polish it up and send that within a few days. Ok? - Andres
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-04-05 02:47:55 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: >> [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] > I've a very preliminary patch. I'd like to only start polishing it up > once the code freeze is over, so I can work on getting some patches in - > note that I myself have no pending patches. Once frozen I'll polish it > up and send that within a few days. FWIW, I'm willing to help out on this. regards, tom lane
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 12:16:25AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-05 02:47:55 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:49:46AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2017-03-09 13:34:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > > > >> Wonder if we there's an argument to be made for implementing this > > > > >> roughly similarly to split_pathtarget_at_srf - instead of injecting a > > > > >> ProjectSet node we'd add a FunctionScan node below a Result node. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, possibly. That would have the advantage of avoiding an ExecProject > > > > > step when the SRFs aren't buried, which would certainly be the expected > > > > > case. > > > > > > > > > > If you don't want to make ExecInitExpr responsible, then the planner would > > > > > have to do something like split_pathtarget_at_srf anyway to decompose the > > > > > expressions, no matter which executor representation we use. > > > > > > > > Did we do anything about this? Are we going to? > > > > > > Working on a patch. > > > > [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] > > > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Andres, > > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a > > v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on > > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of > > this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may > > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed > > well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts > > toward speedy resolution. Thanks. > > I've a very preliminary patch. I'd like to only start polishing it up > once the code freeze is over, so I can work on getting some patches in - > note that I myself have no pending patches. Once frozen I'll polish it > up and send that within a few days. > > Ok? Okay; using my simplistic translator of "a few", I'll look for your next status update on or before 2017-04-11. As always, feel free to set a different date.
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commitid: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2017-01-30 18:54:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > Wonder if we there's an argument to be made for implementing this > > roughly similarly to split_pathtarget_at_srf - instead of injecting a > > ProjectSet node we'd add a FunctionScan node below a Result node. > > Yeah, possibly. That would have the advantage of avoiding an ExecProject > step when the SRFs aren't buried, which would certainly be the expected > case. > > If you don't want to make ExecInitExpr responsible, then the planner would > have to do something like split_pathtarget_at_srf anyway to decompose the > expressions, no matter which executor representation we use. Working on this I came across a few things: Splitting things away from the FunctionScan node doesn't work entirely naturally, due to ORDINALITY. Consider e.g. cases where there's no function to evaluate anymore, because it got inlined, but we want to ORDINALITY. We could obviously support FunctionScan nodes without any associated (or empty) RangeTblFunctions, but that seems awkward. Secondly, doing non-function stuff gets interesting when volatility is involved: Consider something like FROM CAST(srf() * volatile_func() AS whatnot); when, and how often, does volatile_func() get evaluated? If we put it somewhere around the projection path it'll only get evaluated if the rows are actually retrieved and will get re-evaluated upon projection. If we put it somewhere below the tuplestores that nodeFunctionscan./execSRF.c generate for each RangeTblFunction, it'll get called evaluated regardless of being retrieved. The latter is noticeably more complicated, because of SRFM_Materialize SRFs. Our policy around when it's ok to re-evaluate volatile functions isn't clear enough to me, to say which one is right and which one is wrong. For now there's simply another RangeTblFunctions field with a separate non-FuncExpr expression, that can reference to the SRF output via scan Vars. That's evaluated in FunctionNext's !simple branch, where we conveniently have a separate slot already. The separation currently happens create_functionscan_plan(). Tom, do you have any opinion on the volatility stuff? - Andres
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > Tom, do you have any opinion on the volatility stuff? What was the previous behavior for such cases? If it was reasonably sane, we probably have to preserve it. If it was unpredictable or completely wacko, maybe we don't. regards, tom lane
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commitid: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2017-04-11 17:25:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > Tom, do you have any opinion on the volatility stuff? > > What was the previous behavior for such cases? If it was reasonably > sane, we probably have to preserve it. If it was unpredictable or > completely wacko, maybe we don't. Previously we'd stash the result in a new tuplestore, because it happened inside ExecMakeTableFunctionResult()'s fallback path. The inner tuplestore (from the proper SRF) would get evaluated via the the isDone mechanism. That'd imo be a fair amount of work to emulate, because we'd have to manually go over the tuplesttore. But given that we do *not* have similar semantics for volatiles in the targetlist, I'm quite unconvinced that that's necessary. Consider e.g. my previous example of SELECT * FROM CAST(srf() * volatile_func() AS whatnot) rewritten into a saner version as SELECT srf * volatile_func() FROM srf() AS srf; here volatile_func() would before and now get re-evaluated if there's a rewind, and would only be invoked if the row is actually evaluated. - Andres
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-04-11 17:25:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> What was the previous behavior for such cases? If it was reasonably >> sane, we probably have to preserve it. If it was unpredictable or >> completely wacko, maybe we don't. > Previously we'd stash the result in a new tuplestore, because it > happened inside ExecMakeTableFunctionResult()'s fallback path. The > inner tuplestore (from the proper SRF) would get evaluated via the the > isDone mechanism. > That'd imo be a fair amount of work to emulate, because we'd have to > manually go over the tuplesttore. Yeah. I don't have a big problem with saying that things that aren't themselves SRFs are evaluated as though in a projection step atop the SRF calculation. We've already crossed that bridge with respect to expressions around SRFs in the tlist --- for instance this: regression=# select f1, case when f1>0 then generate_series(1,2) else null end as c from int4_tbl; f1 | c -------------+--- 0 | 0 | 123456 | 1 123456 | 2 -123456 | -123456 | 2147483647 |1 2147483647 | 2-2147483647 | -2147483647 | (10 rows) gives different results than it used to: regression96=# select f1, case when f1>0 then generate_series(1,2) else null end as c from int4_tbl; f1 | c -------------+--- 0 | 123456 | 1 123456 | 2 -123456 | 2147483647 | 1 2147483647 | 2-2147483647 | (7 rows) Now, that old behavior matches what you got in the RangeFunction case: regression96=# select * from int4_tbl, cast(case when f1>0 then generate_series(1,2) else null end as int); f1 |int4 -------------+------ 0 | 123456 | 1 123456 | 2 -123456 | 2147483647 | 1 2147483647| 2-2147483647 | (7 rows) So it would make sense to me for our new behavior to still match the targetlist case. Not sure if that's exactly the same as what you're saying or not. regards, tom lane
Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commitid: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2017-04-11 17:42:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Now, that old behavior matches what you got in the RangeFunction case: > > regression96=# select * from int4_tbl, cast(case when f1>0 then generate_series(1,2) else null end as int); > f1 | int4 > -------------+------ > 0 | > 123456 | 1 > 123456 | 2 > -123456 | > 2147483647 | 1 > 2147483647 | 2 > -2147483647 | > (7 rows) > > So it would make sense to me for our new behavior to still match the > targetlist case. > > Not sure if that's exactly the same as what you're saying or not. The patch now indeed returns regression[20994][1]=# select * from int4_tbl, cast(case when f1>0 then generate_series(1,2) else null end as int); WARNING: 01000: replacing LOCATION: frobble_rtefunc, createplan.c:3102 (as you can see, this ain't quite ready) ┌─────────────┬────────┐ │ f1 │ int4 │ ├─────────────┼────────┤ │ 0 │ (null) │ │ 0 │ (null) │ │ 123456 │ 1 │ │ 123456 │ 2 │ │ -123456 │ (null) │ │ -123456 │ (null) │ │ 2147483647 │ 1 │ │ 2147483647 │ 2 │ │ -2147483647 │ (null) │ │ -2147483647 │ (null) │ └─────────────┴────────┘ (10 rows) The basic approach seems quite workable. It's not super extensible to allow SRFs deeper inside generic ROWS FROM arguments however - I'm not sure there's any need to work towards that however, I've not heard demands so far. Any arguments against that? One other thing where it'd currently affect behaviour is something like: SELECT * FROM CAST(generate_series(1,0) * 5 as int); which, in < v10 would return 1 row, but with my patch returns no rows. That makes a lot more sense in my opinion, given that a plain FROM generate_series(1,0) doesn't return any rows in either version. Right now I'm mopping up corner cases where it'd *expand* the set of currently valid commands in an inconsistent manner. Namely FROM int4mul(generate_series(..), 5) works, but FROM composite_returning(somesrf()) wouldn't without additional work. I plan to continue to error out in either... Greetings, Andres Freund
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause(Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2017-04-05 09:39:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2017-04-05 02:47:55 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > >> [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] > > > I've a very preliminary patch. I'd like to only start polishing it up > > once the code freeze is over, so I can work on getting some patches in - > > note that I myself have no pending patches. Once frozen I'll polish it > > up and send that within a few days. > > FWIW, I'm willing to help out on this. Help would be appreciated. I've pondered, and partially implemented, several approaches so far, and my conclusion is that we should just do nothing. The amount of corner cases is just too big, and the utility of the feature too small. To recap, the issue is that in previous versions it was, by accident (there's no test, code comments "supporting" the feature talk about a different corner case, and the behaviour isn't correct in some cases) allowed to do something like: SELECT * FROM CAST(generate_series(1,3) * 5 AS int); while SELECT * FROM generate_series(1,3) * 5; is not allowed. The reason that that works from the gram.y perspective is that CAST etc types of func_expr's. The reason that it worked from a code perspective is that execQual.c:ExecMakeTableFunctionResult() has the following:/* * Normally the passed expression tree will be a FuncExprState,since the * grammar only allows a function call at the top level of a table * function reference. However,if the function doesn't return set then * the planner might have replaced the function call via constant-folding* or inlining. So if we see any other kind of expression node, execute * it via the general ExecEvalExpr()code; the only difference is that we * don't get a chance to pass a special ReturnSetInfo to any functions* buried in the expression. */if (funcexpr && IsA(funcexpr, FuncExprState) && IsA(funcexpr->expr, FuncExpr)) and back then ExecEvalExpr() was allowed to return sets. It also depends on some default initializations (e.g. rsinfo.returnMode = SFRM_ValuePerCall). This yields plenty weird behaviour in < v10. E.g. the following is disallowed: SELECT * FROM int4mul(generate_series(1,3), 1); ERROR: 0A000: set-valued function called in context that cannotaccept a set as is SELECT * FROM CAST(int4mul(generate_series(1,3), 1) AS bigint); ERROR: 0A000: set-valued function called in contextthat cannot accept a set because the cast is implemented as int8(expr) which avoids the fallback path as it's a FuncExpr, but SELECT * FROM CAST(int4mul(generate_series(1,3), 1) AS text); works because the cast is implemented as a io coercion, which is not a funcexpr. Therefore it uses the fallback ExecEvalExpr(). The mismatch between ExecEvalExpr() and nodeFunctionscan.c SRF behaviour back then also yields odd behaviour, e.g.: SELECT * FROM generate_series(1,0); returns zero rows, but SELECT * FROM CAST(generate_series(1,0) * 5 AS INT); returns one NULL row. In v10, as it stands, these all error out, because the SRFs are now only to be evaluated via either nodeFunctionscan.c (FROM) or via nodeProjectSet.c (targetlist), not ExecEvalExpr() anymore. I've basically pondered three different methods of implementing something akin to the old behaviour: 1) Move the non-SRF part into nodeFunctionscan.c's targetlist, and let it be evaluated there. E.g. if the expression is CAST(generate_series(1,5) AS text), evaluate the generate_series(1,5) using nodeFunctionscan's FunctionScanPerFuncStatemachinery, but implement the CAST as CAST(Var(whatever, 1) AS Text). That doesn't work well for composite/record returning rows, because RangeTblFunction's returning composites are expandedinto multiple columns. E.g. SELECT * FROM CAST(CAST(twocol_noset_outline(generate_series(1,3), 'text') AS text)AS twocol); returns all the columns of twocol, not a single wholerow datum. There's also some issues around what to do with cases involving volatile functions when the output is not referenced,or referenced multiple times e.g. SELECT f, f FROM CAST(generate_series(1,3) * nextval(...)) AS f; wouldevaluate nextval() twice with such an approach... 2) During planning, split of the SRF bit from the !SRF bit and have nodeFunctionscan.c evaluate both separately, like 1). That allows to avoid the volatility issue, because the targetlist is still projected separately. I've prototyped this to a reasonable point, by having create_functionscan_plan() process each RangeTblFunction and split the expression into SRF and non-SRF parts, and then have FunctionNext() evaluate the non-SRF part. At the current state of my prototype this happens to allow simple SRF in arguments cases like SELECT * FROM int4mul(generate_series(1,3),1) which are disallowed in < v10. This is reasonably-ish in complexity for scalar values, but gets quite complicated for composite/record datums. Suddenlythere's two different types of values that we need to deal with, the type of datum returned by the SRF, and thetype of datum returned by the final expression - they might be the same, they might not. Especially for record-returningfunctions, where ROWS FROM( AS...) determines the column types, and ExecMakeTableFunctionResult() does a tupledesc_match() to verify the SRF returned something reasonable, it gets wild: What would we even be matching the typesagainst? 3) Implement nested FROM SRFs as pipelined executor nodes, similar to the way targetlist SRFs are now handled. E.g. somethinglike SELECT * FROM CAST(generate_series(1,10) * 5 AS int); would be implemented as one nodeFunctionscan.c for the generate_series(), and then something like nodeProjectSet.c (ora nodeFunctionscan.c branch that'd make a sub-node available) would evaluate the CAST(Var() * 5 AS int). This approach has the advantage that it'd allow us, potentially in the future, to get rid of the restriction that normalROWS FROM doesn't allow SRFs in arguments. I think this again runs into trouble with row-expansion in the return value from SRFs, which isn't actually desired tillthe outermost "level" of the expression. I guess we could add a mode to nodeFunctionscan.c that forces composite/recordtypes to be returned as wholerow vars instead of being split up. My conclusion here is that it's way too complicated to properly implement a feature that only seems to exist by accident and has plenty of weird behaviour. Currently we continue to accept all the !SRF expressions that were previously accepted, but I'd even consider insisting that the expression needs to be a proper FuncExpr at parse-analysis time (before inlining/const evaluation did its thing). Unless somebody has a radically better idea how to implement this? - Andres
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause(Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > This yields plenty weird behaviour in < v10. E.g. the following is > disallowed: > SELECT * FROM int4mul(generate_series(1,3), 1); > ERROR: 0A000: set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set > as is > SELECT * FROM CAST(int4mul(generate_series(1,3), 1) AS bigint); > ERROR: 0A000: set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set > because the cast is implemented as int8(expr) which avoids the fallback > path as it's a FuncExpr, but > SELECT * FROM CAST(int4mul(generate_series(1,3), 1) AS text); > works because the cast is implemented as a io coercion, which is not a > funcexpr. Therefore it uses the fallback ExecEvalExpr(). I don't think it's remotely reasonable to try to reproduce this kind of behavior exactly. I think the question is: if we do nothing here, will users be pissed? The answer is not clear to me. Rushabh's original report cast this as a possible bug, not a query he actually needed to work for any particular real-world purpose. On the other hand, I don't quite understand why any of these examples should fail. If you can select from generate_series() as if it were a table, it seems like you ought to be able to also apply one or more functions to the result and select from the result. On the third hand, if this only sort of half-worked in v9.6, it's hard to say it's a must-have for v10. So I'm not sure what the right thing to do here is. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause(Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2017-04-13 12:53:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > This yields plenty weird behaviour in < v10. E.g. the following is > > disallowed: > > SELECT * FROM int4mul(generate_series(1,3), 1); > > ERROR: 0A000: set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set > > as is > > SELECT * FROM CAST(int4mul(generate_series(1,3), 1) AS bigint); > > ERROR: 0A000: set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set > > because the cast is implemented as int8(expr) which avoids the fallback > > path as it's a FuncExpr, but > > SELECT * FROM CAST(int4mul(generate_series(1,3), 1) AS text); > > works because the cast is implemented as a io coercion, which is not a > > funcexpr. Therefore it uses the fallback ExecEvalExpr(). > > I don't think it's remotely reasonable to try to reproduce this kind > of behavior exactly. I think the question is: if we do nothing here, > will users be pissed? The answer is not clear to me. Rushabh's > original report cast this as a possible bug, not a query he actually > needed to work for any particular real-world purpose. On the other > hand, I don't quite understand why any of these examples should fail. > If you can select from generate_series() as if it were a table, it > seems like you ought to be able to also apply one or more functions to > the result and select from the result. On the third hand, if this > only sort of half-worked in v9.6, it's hard to say it's a must-have > for v10. I'd say it really didn't work at v9.6, and it wasn't intended to, there's always[TM] been explicit code to check for that: /* We don't allow sets in the arguments of the table function */ if (argDone != ExprSingleResult) ereport(ERROR, (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), errmsg("set-valued function calledin context that cannot accept a set"))); it's just that it ended up not being entirely reliably checked... I think there's some argument to be made that SRF in arguments ought to work for reasons of consistency, but the required complications and the lack of field demand make me skeptical about it being worth it. Greetings, Andres Freund
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > So I'm not sure what the right thing to do here is. Andres' points about composite vs noncomposite function result types seem pretty compelling: we could make the behavior better for scalar results, but if it then diverges from what happens for composite results, I don't think that's a step forward. In the end, no matter how much work we put in, there are going to be some corner cases that act differently from before. Considering that none of the previous corner-case behavior here was particularly carefully thought through, that's not necessarily disastrous. We should also consider that contorting the logic to be bug-compatible with prior behavior may preclude additional optimization work in future. I'm a bit inclined to agree with the idea of explicitly requiring SRFs in FROM to appear only at the top level of the expression. That was certainly the only case that the old code was really designed to support, and I doubt that the documentation claims that it works otherwise. Also, to the extent that that ensures we give a clear error rather than possibly giving results that differ from pre-v10, it's probably going to be less of a foot-gun for users. In any case we'd have some documentation work to do here. Maybe we should first look at what, if anything, the docs currently say in this area, and how they'd need to be adjusted if we stick with the currently-implemented behavior. As Andres noted, some of the code comments need work too. regards, tom lane
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Tom Lane
Date:
I wrote: > I'm a bit inclined to agree with the idea of explicitly requiring SRFs > in FROM to appear only at the top level of the expression. If we are going to go down this road, I think it would be a good idea to try to provide a cursor position for the "can't accept a set" error message, because otherwise it will be really unclear what's wrong with something like SELECT * FROM ROWS FROM (generate_series(1,10), abs(generate_series(1,10))); I looked into what it would take to do that, and was pleasantly surprised to find out that most of the infrastructure is already there since commit 4c728f38. Basically all we have to do is the attached. Now that this infrastructure exists, anything that has access to a PlanState or ExprContext, plus a parse node containing a location, is able to report an error cursor. It took a considerable effort of will not to start plastering error position reports on a lot of other executor errors. I think we should do that, but it smells new-feature-y, and hence something to tackle for v11 not now. But if v10 is moving the goalposts on where you can put an SRF call, I think we should do this much in v10. Naming note: a name like ExecErrPosition() would have been more consistent with the other stuff that execUtils.c exports. But since this is meant to be used in ereport() calls, whose support functions generally aren't camel-cased, I thought executor_errposition() was a better choice. I'm not particularly set on that though. regards, tom lane diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execExpr.c b/src/backend/executor/execExpr.c index 15d693f..5a34a46 100644 *** a/src/backend/executor/execExpr.c --- b/src/backend/executor/execExpr.c *************** ExecInitFunc(ExprEvalStep *scratch, Expr *** 2103,2109 **** if (flinfo->fn_retset) ereport(ERROR, (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), ! errmsg("set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set"))); /* Build code to evaluate arguments directly into the fcinfo struct */ argno = 0; --- 2103,2111 ---- if (flinfo->fn_retset) ereport(ERROR, (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), ! errmsg("set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set"), ! parent ? executor_errposition(parent->state, ! exprLocation((Node *) node)) : 0)); /* Build code to evaluate arguments directly into the fcinfo struct */ argno = 0; diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execSRF.c b/src/backend/executor/execSRF.c index 4badd5c..077ac20 100644 *** a/src/backend/executor/execSRF.c --- b/src/backend/executor/execSRF.c *************** *** 34,40 **** /* static function decls */ ! static void init_sexpr(Oid foid, Oid input_collation, SetExprState *sexpr, MemoryContext sexprCxt, bool allowSRF, bool needDescForSRF); static void ShutdownSetExpr(Datum arg); static void ExecEvalFuncArgs(FunctionCallInfo fcinfo, --- 34,41 ---- /* static function decls */ ! static void init_sexpr(Oid foid, Oid input_collation, Expr *node, ! SetExprState *sexpr, PlanState *parent, MemoryContext sexprCxt, bool allowSRF, bool needDescForSRF); static void ShutdownSetExpr(Datum arg); static void ExecEvalFuncArgs(FunctionCallInfo fcinfo, *************** ExecInitTableFunctionResult(Expr *expr, *** 77,83 **** state->funcReturnsSet = func->funcretset; state->args = ExecInitExprList(func->args, parent); ! init_sexpr(func->funcid, func->inputcollid, state, econtext->ecxt_per_query_memory, func->funcretset, false); } else --- 78,84 ---- state->funcReturnsSet = func->funcretset; state->args = ExecInitExprList(func->args, parent); ! init_sexpr(func->funcid, func->inputcollid, expr, state, parent, econtext->ecxt_per_query_memory, func->funcretset, false); } else *************** ExecInitFunctionResultSet(Expr *expr, *** 438,444 **** FuncExpr *func = (FuncExpr *) expr; state->args = ExecInitExprList(func->args, parent); ! init_sexpr(func->funcid, func->inputcollid, state, econtext->ecxt_per_query_memory, true, true); } else if (IsA(expr, OpExpr)) --- 439,445 ---- FuncExpr *func = (FuncExpr *) expr; state->args = ExecInitExprList(func->args, parent); ! init_sexpr(func->funcid, func->inputcollid, expr, state, parent, econtext->ecxt_per_query_memory, true, true); } else if (IsA(expr, OpExpr)) *************** ExecInitFunctionResultSet(Expr *expr, *** 446,452 **** OpExpr *op = (OpExpr *) expr; state->args = ExecInitExprList(op->args, parent); ! init_sexpr(op->opfuncid, op->inputcollid, state, econtext->ecxt_per_query_memory, true, true); } else --- 447,453 ---- OpExpr *op = (OpExpr *) expr; state->args = ExecInitExprList(op->args, parent); ! init_sexpr(op->opfuncid, op->inputcollid, expr, state, parent, econtext->ecxt_per_query_memory, true, true); } else *************** restart: *** 645,651 **** * init_sexpr - initialize a SetExprState node during first use */ static void ! init_sexpr(Oid foid, Oid input_collation, SetExprState *sexpr, MemoryContext sexprCxt, bool allowSRF, bool needDescForSRF) { AclResult aclresult; --- 646,653 ---- * init_sexpr - initialize a SetExprState node during first use */ static void ! init_sexpr(Oid foid, Oid input_collation, Expr *node, ! SetExprState *sexpr, PlanState *parent, MemoryContext sexprCxt, bool allowSRF, bool needDescForSRF) { AclResult aclresult; *************** init_sexpr(Oid foid, Oid input_collation *** 683,689 **** if (sexpr->func.fn_retset && !allowSRF) ereport(ERROR, (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), ! errmsg("set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set"))); /* Otherwise, caller should have marked the sexpr correctly */ Assert(sexpr->func.fn_retset == sexpr->funcReturnsSet); --- 685,693 ---- if (sexpr->func.fn_retset && !allowSRF) ereport(ERROR, (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), ! errmsg("set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set"), ! parent ? executor_errposition(parent->state, ! exprLocation((Node *) node)) : 0)); /* Otherwise, caller should have marked the sexpr correctly */ Assert(sexpr->func.fn_retset == sexpr->funcReturnsSet); diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c b/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c index df3d650..08229bd 100644 *** a/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c --- b/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c *************** *** 28,33 **** --- 28,35 ---- * ExecOpenScanRelation Common code for scan node init routines. * ExecCloseScanRelation * + * executor_errposition Report syntactic position of an error. + * * RegisterExprContextCallback Register function shutdown callback * UnregisterExprContextCallback Deregister function shutdown callback * *************** *** 44,49 **** --- 46,52 ---- #include "access/relscan.h" #include "access/transam.h" #include "executor/executor.h" + #include "mb/pg_wchar.h" #include "nodes/nodeFuncs.h" #include "parser/parsetree.h" #include "storage/lmgr.h" *************** UpdateChangedParamSet(PlanState *node, B *** 686,691 **** --- 689,724 ---- } /* + * executor_errposition + * Report an execution-time cursor position, if possible. + * + * This is expected to be used within an ereport() call. The return value + * is a dummy (always 0, in fact). + * + * The locations stored in parsetrees are byte offsets into the source string. + * We have to convert them to 1-based character indexes for reporting to + * clients. (We do things this way to avoid unnecessary overhead in the + * normal non-error case: computing character indexes would be much more + * expensive than storing token offsets.) + */ + int + executor_errposition(EState *estate, int location) + { + int pos; + + /* No-op if location was not provided */ + if (location < 0) + return 0; + /* Can't do anything if source text is not available */ + if (estate == NULL || estate->es_sourceText == NULL) + return 0; + /* Convert offset to character number */ + pos = pg_mbstrlen_with_len(estate->es_sourceText, location) + 1; + /* And pass it to the ereport mechanism */ + return errposition(pos); + } + + /* * Register a shutdown callback in an ExprContext. * * Shutdown callbacks will be called (in reverse order of registration) diff --git a/src/include/executor/executor.h b/src/include/executor/executor.h index f7f3189..3107cf5 100644 *** a/src/include/executor/executor.h --- b/src/include/executor/executor.h *************** extern bool ExecRelationIsTargetRelation *** 482,487 **** --- 482,489 ---- extern Relation ExecOpenScanRelation(EState *estate, Index scanrelid, int eflags); extern void ExecCloseScanRelation(Relation scanrel); + extern int executor_errposition(EState *estate, int location); + extern void RegisterExprContextCallback(ExprContext *econtext, ExprContextCallbackFunction function, Datum arg); diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/tsrf.out b/src/test/regress/expected/tsrf.out index 33f370b..c8ae361 100644 *** a/src/test/regress/expected/tsrf.out --- b/src/test/regress/expected/tsrf.out *************** SELECT few.dataa, count(*) FROM few WHER *** 193,201 **** --- 193,205 ---- -- SRFs are not allowed in aggregate arguments SELECT min(generate_series(1, 3)) FROM few; ERROR: set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set + LINE 1: SELECT min(generate_series(1, 3)) FROM few; + ^ -- SRFs are not allowed in window function arguments, either SELECT min(generate_series(1, 3)) OVER() FROM few; ERROR: set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set + LINE 1: SELECT min(generate_series(1, 3)) OVER() FROM few; + ^ -- SRFs are normally computed after window functions SELECT id,lag(id) OVER(), count(*) OVER(), generate_series(1,3) FROM few; id | lag | count | generate_series *************** SELECT int4mul(generate_series(1,2), 10) *** 424,429 **** --- 428,435 ---- -- but SRFs in function RTEs must be at top level (annoying restriction) SELECT * FROM int4mul(generate_series(1,2), 10); ERROR: set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set + LINE 1: SELECT * FROM int4mul(generate_series(1,2), 10); + ^ -- DISTINCT ON is evaluated before tSRF evaluation if SRF is not -- referenced either in ORDER BY or in the DISTINCT ON list. The ORDER -- BY reference can be implicitly generated, if there's no other ORDER BY. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause(Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2017-04-17 19:26:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > I'm a bit inclined to agree with the idea of explicitly requiring SRFs > > in FROM to appear only at the top level of the expression. > > If we are going to go down this road, I think it would be a good idea > to try to provide a cursor position for the "can't accept a set" error > message, because otherwise it will be really unclear what's wrong with > something like That sounds like a good plan. > Now that this infrastructure exists, anything that has access to a > PlanState or ExprContext, plus a parse node containing a location, is able > to report an error cursor. I've wished for that ability for a while... > It took a considerable effort of will not to > start plastering error position reports on a lot of other executor errors. > I think we should do that, but it smells new-feature-y, and hence > something to tackle for v11 not now. But if v10 is moving the goalposts > on where you can put an SRF call, I think we should do this much in v10. FWIW, I'd be ok with relaxing things a bit around this, but let's get the minimal thing in first. > Naming note: a name like ExecErrPosition() would have been more consistent > with the other stuff that execUtils.c exports. But since this is meant > to be used in ereport() calls, whose support functions generally aren't > camel-cased, I thought executor_errposition() was a better choice. > I'm not particularly set on that though. Seems slightly better this way. Looks good to me. I'm working on a patch that adds a few more tests around the current behaviour and that updates the code to match what we now know. I couldn't find any place in the docs that actually documents our SRF behaviour in any sort of detail ([1], [2]), particularly not documenting where SRFs are legal, and how nested SRFs are supposed to behave. I'm not sure in how much detail we want to go? If we want do document that, where? The closest seems to be "4.2.14. Expression Evaluation Rules" [3]. Greetings, Andres Freund [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/sql-select.html#sql-from [2] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/queries-table-expressions.html#queries-from [3] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/sql-expressions.html#syntax-express-eval
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-04-17 19:26:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> If we are going to go down this road, I think it would be a good idea >> to try to provide a cursor position for the "can't accept a set" error >> message, because otherwise it will be really unclear what's wrong with >> something like > Looks good to me. Thanks for reviewing. I did some further testing and noted that plperl and pltcl fail to pass through the error cursor, although plpgsql and plpython seem OK. That's a pre-existing issue though --- they don't pass through plain syntax error cursors either. I'm fine with leaving that for later. Otherwise, it seemed to work, so pushed. > I couldn't find any place in the docs that actually documents our SRF > behaviour in any sort of detail ([1], [2]), particularly not documenting > where SRFs are legal, and how nested SRFs are supposed to behave. I'm > not sure in how much detail we want to go? If we want do document that, > where? The closest seems to be "4.2.14. Expression Evaluation Rules" > [3]. Looks like you didn't notice xfunc.sgml? There's a large amount of info there, particularly section 37.4.8: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/xfunc-sql.html#xfunc-sql-functions-returning-set I've never been totally happy with this presentation, since (a) it's buried pretty far in the back of the manual, and (b) structurally it looks like it applies only to SQL-language functions, despite the disclaimer that says it applies to all languages. Still, right now is probably not the time to do massive docs surgery, and in any case I'm not sure that bringing all that detail forward into 4.2 would represent an improvement. Maybe a link or two from chapter 4 would be the ticket. regards, tom lane