one child or the other had a problem: they did not leave the node in a
state that ExecReScanHashJoin would understand. In particular it would
tend to fail to reset the child plans when needed. Per report from
Mario Weilguni.
ScalarArrayOpExpr when possible, that is, whenever there is an array type
for the values of the expression list. This completes the project I've
been working on to improve the speed of index searches with long IN lists,
as per discussion back in mid-October.
I did not force initdb, but until you do one you will see failures in the
"rules" regression test, because some of the standard system views use IN
and their compiled formats have changed.
they were broken-out AND or OR lists. The least grotty way to do this
seemed to be to set up a general mechanism for handling nodes as though
they were ANDs or ORs. There's no other immediate use for it, but perhaps
we might want to use the mechanism someday for things like BETWEEN
SYMMETRIC.
"ctid IN (list)" will still work after we convert IN to ScalarArrayOpExpr.
Make some minor efficiency improvements while at it, such as ensuring that
multiple TIDs are fetched in physical heap order. And fix EXPLAIN so that
it shows what's really going on for a TID scan.
when we first read the page, rather than checking them one at a time.
This allows us to take and release the buffer content lock just once
per page, instead of once per tuple. Since it's a shared lock the
contention penalty for holding the lock longer shouldn't be too bad.
We can safely do this only when using an MVCC snapshot; else the
assumption that visibility won't change over time is uncool. Therefore
there are now two code paths depending on the snapshot type. I also
made the same change in nodeBitmapHeapscan.c, where it can be done always
because we only support MVCC snapshots for bitmap scans anyway.
Also make some incidental cleanups in the APIs of these functions.
Per a suggestion from Qingqing Zhou.
qualification when the underlying operator is indexable and useOr is true.
That is, indexkey op ANY (ARRAY[...]) is effectively translated into an
OR combination of one indexscan for each array element. This only works
for bitmap index scans, of course, since regular indexscans no longer
support OR'ing of scans. There are still some loose ends to clean up
before changing 'x IN (list)' to translate as a ScalarArrayOpExpr;
for instance predtest.c ought to be taught about it. But this gets the
basic functionality in place.
a TupleTableSlot: instead of calling ExecClearTuple, inline the needed
operations, so that we can avoid redundant steps. In particular, when
the old and new tuples are both on the same disk page, avoid releasing
and re-acquiring the buffer pin --- this saves work in both the bufmgr
and ResourceOwner modules. To make this improvement actually useful,
partially revert a change I made on 2004-04-21 that caused SeqNext
et al to call ExecClearTuple before ExecStoreTuple. The motivation
for that, to avoid grabbing the BufMgrLock separately for releasing
the old buffer and grabbing the new one, no longer applies. My
profiling says that this saves about 5% of the CPU time for an
all-in-memory seqscan.
generate their output tuple descriptors from their target lists (ie, using
ExecAssignResultTypeFromTL()). We long ago fixed things so that all node
types have minimally valid tlists, so there's no longer any good reason to
have two different ways of doing it. This change is needed to fix bug
reported by Hayden James: the fix of 2005-11-03 to emit the correct column
names after optimizing away a SubqueryScan node didn't work if the new
top-level plan node used ExecAssignResultTypeFromOuterPlan to generate its
tupdesc, since the next plan node down won't have the correct column labels.
a SubLink expression into a rule query. Pre-8.1 we essentially did this
unconditionally; 8.1 tries to do it only when needed, but was missing a
couple of cases. Per report from Kyle Bateman. Add some regression test
cases covering this area.
comment line where output as too long, and update typedefs for /lib
directory. Also fix case where identifiers were used as variable names
in the backend, but as typedefs in ecpg (favor the backend for
indenting).
Backpatch to 8.1.X.
process of dropping roles by dropping objects owned by them and privileges
granted to them, or giving the owned objects to someone else, through the
use of the data stored in the new pg_shdepend catalog.
Some refactoring of the GRANT/REVOKE code was needed, as well as ALTER OWNER
code. Further cleanup of code duplication in the GRANT code seems necessary.
Implemented by me after an idea from Tom Lane, who also provided various kind
of implementation advice.
Regression tests pass. Some tests for the new functionality are also added,
as well as rudimentary documentation.
- supports multibyte encodings
- more strict rules for lexemes
- flex isn't used
Add:
- tsquery plainto_tsquery(text)
Function makes tsquery from plain text.
- &&, ||, !! operation for tsquery for combining
tsquery from it's parts: 'foo & bar' || 'asd' => 'foo & bar | asd'
tuple in-place, but instead passes back an all-new tuple structure if
any changes are needed. This is a much cleaner and more robust solution
for the bug discovered by Alexey Beschiokov; accordingly, revert the
quick hack I installed yesterday.
With this change, HeapTupleData.t_datamcxt is no longer needed; will
remove it in a separate commit in HEAD only.
doing heap_insert or heap_update, wipe out any extracted fields in
the TupleTableSlot containing the tuple, because they might not be valid
anymore if tuptoaster.c changed the tuple. Safe because slot must be
in the materialized state, but mighty ugly --- find a better answer!
the array (for array_push) or higher-dimensional array (for array_cat)
rather than decrementing it as before. This avoids generating lower
bounds other than one for any array operation within the SQL spec. Per
recent discussion.
Interestingly, this seems to have been the original behavior, because
while updating the docs I noticed that a large fraction of relevant
examples were *wrong* for the old behavior and are now right. Is it
worth correcting this in the back-branch docs?
Bruce Momjian