Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Amit Khandekar <amit(dot)khandekar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers
Date: 2014-08-27 07:23:56
Message-ID: 53FD878C.3030707@vmware.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/27/2014 02:26 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> spi-tuplestore-registry allows tuplestores, with associated name
> and TupleDesc, to be registered with the current SPI connection.
> Queries planned or executed on that connection will recognize the
> name as a tuplestore relation. It doesn't care who is registering
> the tuplestores or what happens to them. It doesn't depend on
> anything else.
> 5 files changed, 445 insertions(+)
>
> ...
>
> plpgsql-after-trigger-transition-tables takes the tuplestores from
> TriggerData and registers them with SPI before trigger planning and
> execution. It depends on the trigger-transition-tables and
> spi-tuplestore-registry patches to build, and won't do anything
> useful at run time without the executor-tuplestore-relations patch.
> 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

This is a surprising way to expose the NEW/OLD relations to the
planner/executor. The problem is the same as with making PL/pgSQL
variables available to the planner/executor in queries within a PL/pgSQL
function, and the solution we have for that is the "parser hooks" you
pass to SPI_prepare_params. This tuplestore registry is a different
solution to the same problem - we could've implemented parameters with a
registry like this as well. Let's not mix two different designs.

I suggest adding a new hook to the ParseState struct, (p_rangevar_hook
?). The planner calls it whenever it sees a reference to a table, and
the hook function returns back some sort of placeholder reference to the
tuplestore. With variables, the hook returns a Param node, and at
execution time, the executor calls the paramFetch hook to fetch the
value of the param. For relations/tuplestores, I guess we'll need to
invent something like a Param node, but for holding information about
the relation. Like your TsrData struct, but without the pointer to the
tuplestore. At execution time, in the SPI_execute call, you pass the
pointer to the tuplestore in the ParamListInfo struct, like you pass
parameter values.

Does this make sense? In essence, make the relations work like PL/pgSQL
variables do. If you squint a little, the new/old relation is a variable
from the function's point of view, and a parameter from the
planner/executor's point of view. It's just a variable/parameter that
holds a set of tuples, instead of a single Datum.

- Heikki

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2014-08-27 07:32:16 Re: postgresql latency & bgwriter not doing its job
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2014-08-27 06:55:27 Re: Switch pg_basebackup to use -X stream instead of -X fetch by default?