Thread: [RFC] Add an until-0 loop in psql
Hi When running database migrations with .sql files on a live database, it's not uncommon to have to run a migration in a loop to prevent a big lock on a table. For instance if one want to delete some old datas from a big table one would write : DELETE FROM big_table WHERE id IN (SELECT id FROM big_table WHERE bad = true LIMIT 1000); VACUUM big_table; Right now, doing this is quite inefficient. We either have to write a script in another language, or run psql in a shell loop and wait for the migration to stop altering rows. The attached **proof of concept** patch (I insist, it's a 15 minutes hack sprint with no previous knowledge of psql code) implements an 'until-0' loop in psql. The previous migration could be simply written as : \until-0 BEGIN; DELETE FROM big_table WHERE id IN (SELECT id FROM big_table WHERE bad = true LIMIT 1000); VACUUM big_table; COMMIT; \end-until And psql will execute it until there is no row affected in the inner queries. I am willing to write a proper patch for this (I hope the tell/seek is an acceptable implementation…), but I prefer having some feedback first. Thanks Pierre
Attachment
Hi
2018-04-24 9:58 GMT+02:00 Pierre Ducroquet <pierre.ducroquet@people-doc.com>:
Hi
When running database migrations with .sql files on a live database, it's not
uncommon to have to run a migration in a loop to prevent a big lock on a
table.
For instance if one want to delete some old datas from a big table one would
write :
DELETE FROM big_table WHERE id IN (SELECT id FROM big_table WHERE bad = true
LIMIT 1000);
VACUUM big_table;
Right now, doing this is quite inefficient. We either have to write a script
in another language, or run psql in a shell loop and wait for the migration to
stop altering rows.
The attached **proof of concept** patch (I insist, it's a 15 minutes hack
sprint with no previous knowledge of psql code) implements an 'until-0' loop
in psql.
The previous migration could be simply written as :
\until-0
BEGIN;
DELETE FROM big_table WHERE id IN (SELECT id FROM big_table WHERE bad = true
LIMIT 1000);
VACUUM big_table;
COMMIT;
\end-until
And psql will execute it until there is no row affected in the inner queries.
I am willing to write a proper patch for this (I hope the tell/seek is an
acceptable implementation…), but I prefer having some feedback first.
I like this idea, but it is really hack :)
In this case, the cycle should be \repeat ... and \end-repeat-until
The expression should be more generic maybe.
Regards
Pavel
Thanks
Pierre
As of v11, DO blocks can do transactions. I think this will meet your needs.
A loop that starts at point X in the code and terminates at point Y has to know how to jump back in the file (if there even is a file!) to point X and re-interpret commands as it makes it's way back through the "file" toward point Y again... a place it might not reach, or it might reach some other loop termination first. \commands can be hidden inside psql variables, files can be conditionally included based on \if statements, and those files might have loop starters/terminators in them. And those commands are processed.
That, or you'd have to capture the code by somehow parsing ahead to the next \until-0 (processing all inner loops as you go, and the files they include, etc), but that means that variables that were expanded the first time are not expanded on subsequent iterations, and that makes it hard to set an exit-condition variable. It would also seriously alter what psql is when inside that loop.
I once did a presentation on ways to (ab)use psql, and one thing I did was recursion via include files. Adapting your loop as literally as possible, it would look like this:
loop_file.sql:
loop_file.sql:
BEGIN;WITH deleted_rows AS (DELETE FROM big_tableWHERE id in (SELECT id FROM big_table WHERE bad = true LIMIT 1000)RETURNING 1)SELECT (COUNT(*) > 0) as deleted_some_rows FROM deleted_rows\gsetVACUUM big_table;COMMIT;\if :deleted_some_rows\include loop_file.sql\endif
What you don't see here is that you're using your psql process's available open file handles as a stack, and when you hit that limit psql will fail. If you remove that limit, then you get a bit further before psql segfaults on you. I think I got ~2700 files deep before that happened. Your stackage may vary.
I'm not saying this is a good solution, quite the contrary. I think the sane solution is right around the corner in Version 11.
Now if we just had a way of passing parameters into DO blocks...
Now if we just had a way of passing parameters into DO blocks...
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:59 AM Pierre Ducroquet <pierre.ducroquet@people-doc.com> wrote:
Hi
When running database migrations with .sql files on a live database, it's not
uncommon to have to run a migration in a loop to prevent a big lock on a
table.
For instance if one want to delete some old datas from a big table one would
write :
DELETE FROM big_table WHERE id IN (SELECT id FROM big_table WHERE bad = true
LIMIT 1000);
VACUUM big_table;
Right now, doing this is quite inefficient. We either have to write a script
in another language, or run psql in a shell loop and wait for the migration to
stop altering rows.
The attached **proof of concept** patch (I insist, it's a 15 minutes hack
sprint with no previous knowledge of psql code) implements an 'until-0' loop
in psql.
The previous migration could be simply written as :
\until-0
BEGIN;
DELETE FROM big_table WHERE id IN (SELECT id FROM big_table WHERE bad = true
LIMIT 1000);
VACUUM big_table;
COMMIT;
\end-until
And psql will execute it until there is no row affected in the inner queries.
I am willing to write a proper patch for this (I hope the tell/seek is an
acceptable implementation…), but I prefer having some feedback first.
Thanks
Pierre
Hi
2018-04-27 21:40 GMT+02:00 Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>:
As of v11, DO blocks can do transactions. I think this will meet your needs.A loop that starts at point X in the code and terminates at point Y has to know how to jump back in the file (if there even is a file!) to point X and re-interpret commands as it makes it's way back through the "file" toward point Y again... a place it might not reach, or it might reach some other loop termination first. \commands can be hidden inside psql variables, files can be conditionally included based on \if statements, and those files might have loop starters/terminators in them. And those commands are processed.That, or you'd have to capture the code by somehow parsing ahead to the next \until-0 (processing all inner loops as you go, and the files they include, etc), but that means that variables that were expanded the first time are not expanded on subsequent iterations, and that makes it hard to set an exit-condition variable. It would also seriously alter what psql is when inside that loop.I once did a presentation on ways to (ab)use psql, and one thing I did was recursion via include files. Adapting your loop as literally as possible, it would look like this:
loop_file.sql:BEGIN;WITH deleted_rows AS (DELETE FROM big_tableWHERE id in (SELECT id FROM big_table WHERE bad = true LIMIT 1000)RETURNING 1)SELECT (COUNT(*) > 0) as deleted_some_rows FROM deleted_rows\gsetVACUUM big_table;COMMIT;\if :deleted_some_rows\include loop_file.sql\endif
What you don't see here is that you're using your psql process's available open file handles as a stack, and when you hit that limit psql will fail. If you remove that limit, then you get a bit further before psql segfaults on you. I think I got ~2700 files deep before that happened. Your stackage may vary.I'm not saying this is a good solution, quite the contrary. I think the sane solution is right around the corner in Version 11.
Now if we just had a way of passing parameters into DO blocks...
I hope so there will be schema (temporal) variables:
create temp variable foo int default 10;
do $$
begin
for i in 1..foo loop
raise notice '%', i;
end loop;
end;
$$;
$$;
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:59 AM Pierre Ducroquet <pierre.ducroquet@people-doc.com> wrote: Hi
When running database migrations with .sql files on a live database, it's not
uncommon to have to run a migration in a loop to prevent a big lock on a
table.
For instance if one want to delete some old datas from a big table one would
write :
DELETE FROM big_table WHERE id IN (SELECT id FROM big_table WHERE bad = true
LIMIT 1000);
VACUUM big_table;
Right now, doing this is quite inefficient. We either have to write a script
in another language, or run psql in a shell loop and wait for the migration to
stop altering rows.
The attached **proof of concept** patch (I insist, it's a 15 minutes hack
sprint with no previous knowledge of psql code) implements an 'until-0' loop
in psql.
The previous migration could be simply written as :
\until-0
BEGIN;
DELETE FROM big_table WHERE id IN (SELECT id FROM big_table WHERE bad = true
LIMIT 1000);
VACUUM big_table;
COMMIT;
\end-until
And psql will execute it until there is no row affected in the inner queries.
I am willing to write a proper patch for this (I hope the tell/seek is an
acceptable implementation…), but I prefer having some feedback first.
Thanks
Pierre
What you don't see here is that you're using your psql process's available open file handles as a stack, and when you hit that limit psql will fail. If you remove that limit, then you get a bit further before psql segfaults on you. I think I got ~2700 files deep before that happened. Your stackage may vary.I'm not saying this is a good solution, quite the contrary. I think the sane solution is right around the corner in Version 11.
Now if we just had a way of passing parameters into DO blocks...I hope so there will be schema (temporal) variables:create temp variable foo int default 10;do $$beginfor i in 1..foo loopraise notice '%', i;end loop;end;
$$;
That would be nice too.
A while back, somebody explained why implementing parameters in a DO block was so hard, but I don't recall why, and the search terms "do" and "parameter" don't really narrow things down.
2018-04-28 7:36 GMT+02:00 Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>:
What you don't see here is that you're using your psql process's available open file handles as a stack, and when you hit that limit psql will fail. If you remove that limit, then you get a bit further before psql segfaults on you. I think I got ~2700 files deep before that happened. Your stackage may vary.I'm not saying this is a good solution, quite the contrary. I think the sane solution is right around the corner in Version 11.
Now if we just had a way of passing parameters into DO blocks...I hope so there will be schema (temporal) variables:create temp variable foo int default 10;do $$beginfor i in 1..foo loopraise notice '%', i;end loop;end;
$$;That would be nice too.A while back, somebody explained why implementing parameters in a DO block was so hard, but I don't recall why, and the search terms "do" and "parameter" don't really narrow things down.
I did it too. It is not too hard - there was not a agreement on syntax.
can be nice some like CTE
WITH PROCEDURE x(a int, b int) AS ... $$ SELECT x(10);
Maybe Oracle supports this syntax
Pavel
I did it too. It is not too hard - there was not a agreement on syntax.can be nice some like CTEWITH PROCEDURE x(a int, b int) AS ... $$ SELECT x(10);
I've seen "WITH function...." syntax in Oracle (here's an example: https://oracle-base.com/articles/12c/with-clause-enhancements-12cr1) , but I can see where we'd run into trouble with SELECT statements being atomic, and the PROCEDURE being transactional. If we only allowed a one-line SELECT that problem would go away, but that raises the question of whether SELECT is the right keyword for the job. Is there something in the SQL standard for that?
Either way, we're clearly talking about something to add to postgres, not psql itself, and we should split this conversation to another thread. Sorry for hijacking your thread, Pierre.
2018-04-28 21:25 GMT+02:00 Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>:
My example was wrong
WITH PROCEDURE x(a int, b int) AS ... $$ CALL x(10);
I did it too. It is not too hard - there was not a agreement on syntax.can be nice some like CTEWITH PROCEDURE x(a int, b int) AS ... $$ SELECT x(10);I've seen "WITH function...." syntax in Oracle (here's an example: https://oracle-base.com/articles/12c/with-clause- enhancements-12cr1) , but I can see where we'd run into trouble with SELECT statements being atomic, and the PROCEDURE being transactional. If we only allowed a one-line SELECT that problem would go away, but that raises the question of whether SELECT is the right keyword for the job. Is there something in the SQL standard for that?
WITH PROCEDURE x(a int, b int) AS ... $$ CALL x(10);
but still, we can use different syntax based on default parameters -
DO (a => 10, b => 20) $$ ... $$
probably implementation should not be hard.
Either way, we're clearly talking about something to add to postgres, not psql itself, and we should split this conversation to another thread. Sorry for hijacking your thread, Pierre.
+1 we can start new thread if is interest about this topic. The problem is just in syntax, nothing else.
note: DO is executed as function if I remember well, not as procedure! So this should be changed.
Regards
Pavel
Corey Huinker wrote: > As of v11, DO blocks can do transactions. I think this will meet your needs. They do support COMMIT and ROLLBACK in the current development tree, but not VACUUM as in Pierre's example. postgres=# \echo :SERVER_VERSION_NAME 11devel postgres=# do ' begin vacuum; end '; ERROR: VACUUM cannot be executed from a function CONTEXT: SQL statement "vacuum" PL/pgSQL function inline_code_block line 1 at SQL statement Best regards, -- Daniel Vérité PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org Twitter: @DanielVerite
On Monday, April 30, 2018 1:01:25 PM CEST Daniel Verite wrote: > Corey Huinker wrote: > > As of v11, DO blocks can do transactions. I think this will meet your > > needs. > They do support COMMIT and ROLLBACK in the current > development tree, but not VACUUM as in Pierre's example. > > postgres=# \echo :SERVER_VERSION_NAME > 11devel > > postgres=# do ' begin vacuum; end '; > ERROR: VACUUM cannot be executed from a function > CONTEXT: SQL statement "vacuum" > PL/pgSQL function inline_code_block line 1 at SQL statement > > > Best regards, Indeed, vacuum is going to be the biggest offender here, sadly. One could work around this of course (on top of my head, using notify to wake- up another client that would launch the required vacuums…) Being able to do transactions in DO blocks is a great new feature of v11 I was not aware of. But psql saw the addition of \if recently, so why not having loops in there too ? (Something better than this hack of course, it was just a 10 minutes hack-sprint for a demo) Regards Pierre
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 7:05 AM Pierre Ducroquet <pierre.ducroquet@people-doc.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 30, 2018 1:01:25 PM CEST Daniel Verite wrote:
> Corey Huinker wrote:
> > As of v11, DO blocks can do transactions. I think this will meet your
> > needs.
> They do support COMMIT and ROLLBACK in the current
> development tree, but not VACUUM as in Pierre's example.
>
> postgres=# \echo :SERVER_VERSION_NAME
> 11devel
>
> postgres=# do ' begin vacuum; end ';
> ERROR: VACUUM cannot be executed from a function
> CONTEXT: SQL statement "vacuum"
> PL/pgSQL function inline_code_block line 1 at SQL statement
>
>
> Best regards,
Indeed, vacuum is going to be the biggest offender here, sadly.
One could work around this of course (on top of my head, using notify to wake-
up another client that would launch the required vacuums…)
Being able to do transactions in DO blocks is a great new feature of v11 I was
not aware of. But psql saw the addition of \if recently, so why not having
loops in there too ? (Something better than this hack of course, it was just a
10 minutes hack-sprint for a demo)
Regards
Pierre
Bummer about vacuum.
If you dig into the very long discussion about \if (which, incidentally, started off as a 20-line command patch called \quit-if, so don't discount that your idea could take off), you'll see some of the problems with looping discussed, mostly about the issues I already alluded to (no concept of reading backwards on STDIN, scoping outside the current "file", ability of psql vars to contain executable \commands), you'll have a pretty good grasp of the places where psql would need changes.
In the mean time, if you believe the table won't get much larger during the operation, you could use \gexec as a finite loop iterator
In the mean time, if you believe the table won't get much larger during the operation, you could use \gexec as a finite loop iterator
SELECT count(*)::bigint / 1000 FROM big_table as num_iters
\gset
SELECT
'BEGIN',
'BEGIN',
'DELETE FROM big_table WHERE id IN (SELECT id FROM big_table WHERE bad = true LIMIT 1000)',
'VACUUM big_table',
'COMMIT'
from generate_series(1,:num_iters) g
\gexec
'VACUUM big_table',
'COMMIT'
from generate_series(1,:num_iters) g
\gexec
If the number of rows increases, then your finite loop will fall short, and if something else deletes a bunch of rows, your loop will spin it's wheels a few times at the end, but it would do most of what you want.
On 4/30/18 07:01, Daniel Verite wrote: >> As of v11, DO blocks can do transactions. I think this will meet your needs. > > They do support COMMIT and ROLLBACK in the current > development tree, but not VACUUM as in Pierre's example. Support for VACUUM can be added in the future. There is no big problem with it. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services