Thread: Re: cached plan must not change result type
Thanks Laurenz, forwarded to pgjdbc, we want to understand why JDBC failed to reexecute the SQL instead of throw error out. Like this document https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/server-prepare/#re-execution-of-failed-statements .
Thanks,
James
On Fri, 2024-03-29 at 10:05 +0800, James Pang wrote:
> PGV14, client use PGJDBC driver and prepared statements, when a table
> "alter table alter column type ..." changes done, a lot of JDBC clients
> got this error "cached plan must not change result type". when a JDBC
> client got this error first time after the DDL schema change, JDBC driver
> will clear this caching-plan and following same SQL statement got parsing
> again and new cached plan right?
Not sure; what do you observe?
Anyway, this is a known problem:
https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/server-prepare/#ddl
> How to avoid this issue when DDL schema changes ?
Don't use server-side prepared statements:
https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/server-prepare/#deactivation
You'll lose some performance though.
Questions like this had better be asked on the pgsql-jdbc list.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
forwarded to pgjdbc, we want to understand why JDBC failed to reexecute the SQL instead of throw error out. Like this document https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/server-prepare/#re-execution-of-failed-statements .
@Nullable ParameterList queryParameters, int flags)
throws SQLException {
try {
executeInternal(cachedQuery, queryParameters, flags);
} catch (SQLException e) {
// Don't retry composite queries as it might get partially executed
if (cachedQuery.query.getSubqueries() != null <<< no idea how this cachedQuery.query.getSubqueries() != null
|| !connection.getQueryExecutor().willHealOnRetry(e)) {
throw e;
}
cachedQuery.query.close();
// Execute the query one more time
executeInternal(cachedQuery, queryParameters, flags);
}
}
Thanks Laurenz, forwarded to pgjdbc, we want to understand why JDBC failed to reexecute the SQL instead of throw error out. Like this document https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/server-prepare/#re-execution-of-failed-statements .
Thanks,
James
Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> 於 2024年3月29日週五 下午4:40寫道:On Fri, 2024-03-29 at 10:05 +0800, James Pang wrote:
> PGV14, client use PGJDBC driver and prepared statements, when a table
> "alter table alter column type ..." changes done, a lot of JDBC clients
> got this error "cached plan must not change result type". when a JDBC
> client got this error first time after the DDL schema change, JDBC driver
> will clear this caching-plan and following same SQL statement got parsing
> again and new cached plan right?
Not sure; what do you observe?
Anyway, this is a known problem:
https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/server-prepare/#ddl
> How to avoid this issue when DDL schema changes ?
Don't use server-side prepared statements:
https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/server-prepare/#deactivation
You'll lose some performance though.
Questions like this had better be asked on the pgsql-jdbc list.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
forwarded to pgjdbc, we want to understand why JDBC failed to reexecute the SQL instead of throw error out. Like this document https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/server-prepare/#re-execution-of-failed-statements .
protected final void execute(CachedQuery cachedQuery,
@Nullable ParameterList queryParameters, int flags)
throws SQLException {
try {
executeInternal(cachedQuery, queryParameters, flags);
} catch (SQLException e) {
// Don't retry composite queries as it might get partially executed
if (cachedQuery.query.getSubqueries() != null <<< no idea how this cachedQuery.query.getSubqueries() != null
|| !connection.getQueryExecutor().willHealOnRetry(e)) {
throw e;
}
cachedQuery.query.close();
// Execute the query one more time
executeInternal(cachedQuery, queryParameters, flags);
}
}cachedQuery.query.getSubqueries() != null, how this code decide composite queries here ? that mean some query having subquery or having many JOIN or LEFT JOINs like select .... A left join B ...Thanks,James
Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks> writes: > This is really an issue that needs to be solved in the backend. The error > is coming from PostgreSQL and what should happen is that when you alter a > table that a server prepared statement relies on the backend should send a > message to tell us that all of the prepared statements that rely on are now > invalid and we can reprepare them. This is something that can't change without a wire protocol change. There is nothing in the protocol that allows the backend to send out a message like "oh, that Describe I sent you awhile back? It might be a lie now" at random times. Also, what do you want to do about race conditions --- that is, what if you fire off an Execute only to find that one of those messages was already in flight to you? A non-racy way to handle it might be for Bind/Execute to refuse to run the query if its output has changed since the last Describe, which we could check after acquiring table locks during Bind. But we'd want to define "refuse" in a way that doesn't abort the transaction, and that's a concept that doesn't exist in the protocol at all. regards, tom lane
Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks> writes:
> This is really an issue that needs to be solved in the backend. The error
> is coming from PostgreSQL and what should happen is that when you alter a
> table that a server prepared statement relies on the backend should send a
> message to tell us that all of the prepared statements that rely on are now
> invalid and we can reprepare them.
This is something that can't change without a wire protocol change.
There is nothing in the protocol that allows the backend to send out
a message like "oh, that Describe I sent you awhile back? It might
be a lie now" at random times.
Also, what do you want to do about
race conditions --- that is, what if you fire off an Execute only
to find that one of those messages was already in flight to you?
A non-racy way to handle it might be for Bind/Execute to refuse to
run the query if its output has changed since the last Describe,
which we could check after acquiring table locks during Bind.
But we'd want to define "refuse" in a way that doesn't abort the
transaction, and that's a concept that doesn't exist in the
protocol at all.
if (e == null || e.getSQLState() == null) {
return false;
}
// "prepared statement \"S_2\" does not exist"
if (PSQLState.INVALID_SQL_STATEMENT_NAME.getState().equals(e.getSQLState())) {
return true;
}
if (!PSQLState.NOT_IMPLEMENTED.getState().equals(e.getSQLState())) {
return false;
}
if (!(e instanceof PSQLException)) {
return false;
}
PSQLException pe = (PSQLException) e;
ServerErrorMessage serverErrorMessage = pe.getServerErrorMessage();
if (serverErrorMessage == null) {
return false;
}
// "cached plan must not change result type"
String routine = serverErrorMessage.getRoutine();
return "RevalidateCachedQuery".equals(routine) // 9.2+
|| "RevalidateCachedPlan".equals(routine); // <= 9.1
}
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 at 12:21, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks> writes:
> This is really an issue that needs to be solved in the backend. The error
> is coming from PostgreSQL and what should happen is that when you alter a
> table that a server prepared statement relies on the backend should send a
> message to tell us that all of the prepared statements that rely on are now
> invalid and we can reprepare them.
This is something that can't change without a wire protocol change.
There is nothing in the protocol that allows the backend to send out
a message like "oh, that Describe I sent you awhile back? It might
be a lie now" at random times.I agree, but it's a known issue. I'm just pointing that it would be nice to have.We'd have to figure out the details.Also, what do you want to do about
race conditions --- that is, what if you fire off an Execute only
to find that one of those messages was already in flight to you?
A non-racy way to handle it might be for Bind/Execute to refuse to
run the query if its output has changed since the last Describe,
which we could check after acquiring table locks during Bind.
But we'd want to define "refuse" in a way that doesn't abort the
transaction, and that's a concept that doesn't exist in the
protocol at all.This actually sounds like the best option as we wouldn't have to fire off a message, just refuse to run the Execute in a way that doesn't abort the transaction.Dave
we did DDL "alter table ... alter column increase varchar(512) to varchar(1024)", after that done, hours later, new query select on this table still failed this error. From this https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/server-prepare/#re-execution-of-failed-statements , looks like pgjdbc try to handle this exception and retry, but in our case, it did not happen. Could you direct me how to make this retry work? we only want new transactions,queries work that after the DDL changes.protected boolean willHealViaReparse(SQLException e) {
if (e == null || e.getSQLState() == null) {
return false;
}
// "prepared statement \"S_2\" does not exist"
if (PSQLState.INVALID_SQL_STATEMENT_NAME.getState().equals(e.getSQLState())) {
return true;
}
if (!PSQLState.NOT_IMPLEMENTED.getState().equals(e.getSQLState())) {
return false;
}
if (!(e instanceof PSQLException)) {
return false;
}
PSQLException pe = (PSQLException) e;
ServerErrorMessage serverErrorMessage = pe.getServerErrorMessage();
if (serverErrorMessage == null) {
return false;
}
// "cached plan must not change result type"
String routine = serverErrorMessage.getRoutine();
return "RevalidateCachedQuery".equals(routine) // 9.2+
|| "RevalidateCachedPlan".equals(routine); // <= 9.1
}
Thanks,
JamesDave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks> 於 2024年3月30日週六 上午12:48寫道:On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 at 12:21, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks> writes:
> This is really an issue that needs to be solved in the backend. The error
> is coming from PostgreSQL and what should happen is that when you alter a
> table that a server prepared statement relies on the backend should send a
> message to tell us that all of the prepared statements that rely on are now
> invalid and we can reprepare them.
This is something that can't change without a wire protocol change.
There is nothing in the protocol that allows the backend to send out
a message like "oh, that Describe I sent you awhile back? It might
be a lie now" at random times.I agree, but it's a known issue. I'm just pointing that it would be nice to have.We'd have to figure out the details.Also, what do you want to do about
race conditions --- that is, what if you fire off an Execute only
to find that one of those messages was already in flight to you?
A non-racy way to handle it might be for Bind/Execute to refuse to
run the query if its output has changed since the last Describe,
which we could check after acquiring table locks during Bind.
But we'd want to define "refuse" in a way that doesn't abort the
transaction, and that's a concept that doesn't exist in the
protocol at all.This actually sounds like the best option as we wouldn't have to fire off a message, just refuse to run the Execute in a way that doesn't abort the transaction.Dave
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 at 19:42, James Pang <jamespang886@gmail.com> wrote:we did DDL "alter table ... alter column increase varchar(512) to varchar(1024)", after that done, hours later, new query select on this table still failed this error. From this https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/server-prepare/#re-execution-of-failed-statements , looks like pgjdbc try to handle this exception and retry, but in our case, it did not happen. Could you direct me how to make this retry work? we only want new transactions,queries work that after the DDL changes.protected boolean willHealViaReparse(SQLException e) {
if (e == null || e.getSQLState() == null) {
return false;
}
// "prepared statement \"S_2\" does not exist"
if (PSQLState.INVALID_SQL_STATEMENT_NAME.getState().equals(e.getSQLState())) {
return true;
}
if (!PSQLState.NOT_IMPLEMENTED.getState().equals(e.getSQLState())) {
return false;
}
if (!(e instanceof PSQLException)) {
return false;
}
PSQLException pe = (PSQLException) e;
ServerErrorMessage serverErrorMessage = pe.getServerErrorMessage();
if (serverErrorMessage == null) {
return false;
}
// "cached plan must not change result type"
String routine = serverErrorMessage.getRoutine();
return "RevalidateCachedQuery".equals(routine) // 9.2+
|| "RevalidateCachedPlan".equals(routine); // <= 9.1
}This only works if there was no transaction.DaveThanks,
On Sat, 2024-03-30 at 08:27 -0400, Dave Cramer wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 at 19:42, James Pang <jamespang886@gmail.com> wrote: > > > we did DDL "alter table ... alter column increase varchar(512) to varchar(1024)", > > > after that done, hours later, new query select on this table still failed this error. > > > From this https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/server-prepare/#re-execution-of-failed-statements , > > > looks like pgjdbc try to handle this exception and retry, but in our case, it did not happen. > > > Could you direct me how to make this retry work? > > > we only want new transactions,queries work that after the DDL changes. > > I think the best option for you is to turn off server side prepared statements with prepareThreshold=0 An alternative option is to take downtime for DDL and restart the application. Or to chppse the appropriate data type right away: in your case, that would have been "text". Yours, Laurenz Albe
On Sat, 2024-03-30 at 08:27 -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 at 19:42, James Pang <jamespang886@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > we did DDL "alter table ... alter column increase varchar(512) to varchar(1024)",
> > > after that done, hours later, new query select on this table still failed this error.
> > > From this https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/server-prepare/#re-execution-of-failed-statements ,
> > > looks like pgjdbc try to handle this exception and retry, but in our case, it did not happen.
> > > Could you direct me how to make this retry work?
> > > we only want new transactions,queries work that after the DDL changes.
>
> I think the best option for you is to turn off server side prepared statements with prepareThreshold=0
An alternative option is to take downtime for DDL and restart the application.
Or to chppse the appropriate data type right away: in your case, that would
have been "text".
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
1) turn off server side prepared statements with prepareThreshold=0with this threshold=0, if it's still possible to avoid parsing, planning from Postgresql server side, like set plan_cache_mode=force_generic_plan or with default "auto" mode. Postgresql server can make the plan cached and reused.
2) change varchar(n) to varchar or text, then restart application, so avoid future similar increase varchar(n) changes.it's safe to performance or optimizer ,right?
Thanks,JamesLaurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> 於 2024年3月30日週六 下午10:06寫道:On Sat, 2024-03-30 at 08:27 -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 at 19:42, James Pang <jamespang886@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > we did DDL "alter table ... alter column increase varchar(512) to varchar(1024)",
> > > after that done, hours later, new query select on this table still failed this error.
> > > From this https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/server-prepare/#re-execution-of-failed-statements ,
> > > looks like pgjdbc try to handle this exception and retry, but in our case, it did not happen.
> > > Could you direct me how to make this retry work?
> > > we only want new transactions,queries work that after the DDL changes.
>
> I think the best option for you is to turn off server side prepared statements with prepareThreshold=0
An alternative option is to take downtime for DDL and restart the application.
Or to chppse the appropriate data type right away: in your case, that would
have been "text".
Yours,
Laurenz Albe