agora inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feed[PATCH 04/11] Add explain(MACHINE) to hide machine-dependent output..
41+ messages / 6 participants
[nested] [flat]
* [PATCH 04/11] Add explain(MACHINE) to hide machine-dependent output..
@ 2020-02-23 00:45 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-02-23 00:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
This new option hides some output that has traditionally been shown; the option
is enabled by regression mode to hide unstable output.
This allows EXPLAIN ANALYZE to be used in regression tests with stable output.
This is like a "quiet" mode, or negative verbosity.
Also add regression tests for HashAgg and Bitmap scan, which previously had no
tests with explain(analyze).
This does not handle variations in "Workers Launched", or other parallel worker
bits which are handled by force_parallel_mode=regress.
Also add tests for show_hashagg_info and tidbitmap, for which there's no other
test.
---
src/backend/commands/explain.c | 77 +++++++++++++------
src/include/commands/explain.h | 1 +
src/test/isolation/expected/horizons.out | 40 +++++-----
src/test/isolation/specs/horizons.spec | 2 +-
src/test/regress/expected/explain.out | 55 +++++++++++++
.../regress/expected/incremental_sort.out | 4 +-
src/test/regress/expected/memoize.out | 35 ++++-----
src/test/regress/expected/partition_prune.out | 4 +-
src/test/regress/expected/select_parallel.out | 32 +++-----
src/test/regress/expected/subselect.out | 21 +----
src/test/regress/sql/explain.sql | 17 ++++
src/test/regress/sql/memoize.sql | 4 +-
src/test/regress/sql/select_parallel.sql | 20 +----
src/test/regress/sql/subselect.sql | 19 +----
14 files changed, 182 insertions(+), 149 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/explain.c b/src/backend/commands/explain.c
index 050b7467c6..833daac940 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/explain.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/explain.c
@@ -175,6 +175,7 @@ ExplainQuery(ParseState *pstate, ExplainStmt *stmt,
bool summary_set = false;
bool costs_set = false;
bool buffers_set = false;
+ bool machine_set = false;
/* Parse options list. */
foreach(lc, stmt->options)
@@ -210,6 +211,11 @@ ExplainQuery(ParseState *pstate, ExplainStmt *stmt,
summary_set = true;
es->summary = defGetBoolean(opt);
}
+ else if (strcmp(opt->defname, "machine") == 0)
+ {
+ machine_set = true;
+ es->machine = defGetBoolean(opt);
+ }
else if (strcmp(opt->defname, "format") == 0)
{
char *p = defGetString(opt);
@@ -260,6 +266,9 @@ ExplainQuery(ParseState *pstate, ExplainStmt *stmt,
/* if the buffers option was not set explicitly, set default value */
es->buffers = (buffers_set) ? es->buffers : !explain_regress;
+ /* if the machine option was not set explicitly, set default value */
+ es->machine = (machine_set) ? es->machine : !explain_regress;
+
query = castNode(Query, stmt->query);
if (IsQueryIdEnabled())
jstate = JumbleQuery(query, pstate->p_sourcetext);
@@ -621,7 +630,7 @@ ExplainOnePlan(PlannedStmt *plannedstmt, IntoClause *into, ExplainState *es,
/* Create textual dump of plan tree */
ExplainPrintPlan(es, queryDesc);
- if (es->verbose && plannedstmt->queryId != UINT64CONST(0))
+ if (es->verbose && plannedstmt->queryId != UINT64CONST(0) && es->machine)
{
/*
* Output the queryid as an int64 rather than a uint64 so we match
@@ -632,7 +641,7 @@ ExplainOnePlan(PlannedStmt *plannedstmt, IntoClause *into, ExplainState *es,
}
/* Show buffer usage in planning */
- if (bufusage)
+ if (bufusage && es->buffers)
{
ExplainOpenGroup("Planning", "Planning", true, es);
show_buffer_usage(es, bufusage, true);
@@ -1772,7 +1781,7 @@ ExplainNode(PlanState *planstate, List *ancestors,
if (plan->qual)
show_instrumentation_count("Rows Removed by Filter", 1,
planstate, es);
- if (es->analyze)
+ if (es->analyze && es->machine)
ExplainPropertyFloat("Heap Fetches", NULL,
planstate->instrument->ntuples2, 0, es);
break;
@@ -2746,8 +2755,12 @@ show_sort_info(SortState *sortstate, ExplainState *es)
if (es->format == EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT)
{
ExplainIndentText(es);
- appendStringInfo(es->str, "Sort Method: %s %s: " INT64_FORMAT "kB\n",
- sortMethod, spaceType, spaceUsed);
+ appendStringInfo(es->str, "Sort Method: %s",
+ sortMethod);
+ if (es->machine)
+ appendStringInfo(es->str, " %s: " INT64_FORMAT "kB",
+ spaceType, spaceUsed);
+ appendStringInfoString(es->str, "\n");
}
else
{
@@ -2791,8 +2804,12 @@ show_sort_info(SortState *sortstate, ExplainState *es)
{
ExplainIndentText(es);
appendStringInfo(es->str,
- "Sort Method: %s %s: " INT64_FORMAT "kB\n",
- sortMethod, spaceType, spaceUsed);
+ "Sort Method: %s",
+ sortMethod);
+ if (es->machine)
+ appendStringInfo(es->str, " %s: " INT64_FORMAT "kB", spaceType, spaceUsed);
+
+ appendStringInfoString(es->str, "\n");
}
else
{
@@ -3080,25 +3097,26 @@ show_hash_info(HashState *hashstate, ExplainState *es)
ExplainPropertyInteger("Peak Memory Usage", "kB",
spacePeakKb, es);
}
- else if (hinstrument.nbatch_original != hinstrument.nbatch ||
- hinstrument.nbuckets_original != hinstrument.nbuckets)
+ else
{
ExplainIndentText(es);
- appendStringInfo(es->str,
- "Buckets: %d (originally %d) Batches: %d (originally %d) Memory Usage: %ldkB\n",
+ if (hinstrument.nbatch_original != hinstrument.nbatch ||
+ hinstrument.nbuckets_original != hinstrument.nbuckets)
+ appendStringInfo(es->str,
+ "Buckets: %d (originally %d) Batches: %d (originally %d)",
hinstrument.nbuckets,
hinstrument.nbuckets_original,
hinstrument.nbatch,
- hinstrument.nbatch_original,
- spacePeakKb);
- }
- else
- {
- ExplainIndentText(es);
- appendStringInfo(es->str,
- "Buckets: %d Batches: %d Memory Usage: %ldkB\n",
- hinstrument.nbuckets, hinstrument.nbatch,
- spacePeakKb);
+ hinstrument.nbatch_original);
+ else
+ appendStringInfo(es->str,
+ "Buckets: %d Batches: %d",
+ hinstrument.nbuckets, hinstrument.nbatch);
+
+ if (es->machine)
+ appendStringInfo(es->str, " Memory Usage: %ldkB", spacePeakKb);
+
+ appendStringInfoChar(es->str, '\n');
}
}
}
@@ -3182,12 +3200,16 @@ show_memoize_info(MemoizeState *mstate, List *ancestors, ExplainState *es)
{
ExplainIndentText(es);
appendStringInfo(es->str,
- "Hits: " UINT64_FORMAT " Misses: " UINT64_FORMAT " Evictions: " UINT64_FORMAT " Overflows: " UINT64_FORMAT " Memory Usage: " INT64_FORMAT "kB\n",
+ "Hits: " UINT64_FORMAT " Misses: " UINT64_FORMAT " Evictions: " UINT64_FORMAT " Overflows: " UINT64_FORMAT,
mstate->stats.cache_hits,
mstate->stats.cache_misses,
mstate->stats.cache_evictions,
- mstate->stats.cache_overflows,
+ mstate->stats.cache_overflows);
+ if (es->machine)
+ appendStringInfo(es->str, " Memory Usage: " INT64_FORMAT "kB",
memPeakKb);
+
+ appendStringInfoChar(es->str, '\n');
}
}
@@ -3256,13 +3278,16 @@ show_hashagg_info(AggState *aggstate, ExplainState *es)
Agg *agg = (Agg *) aggstate->ss.ps.plan;
int64 memPeakKb = (aggstate->hash_mem_peak + 1023) / 1024;
+ /* XXX: there's nothing portable we can show here ? */
+ if (!es->machine)
+ return;
+
if (agg->aggstrategy != AGG_HASHED &&
agg->aggstrategy != AGG_MIXED)
return;
if (es->format != EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT)
{
-
if (es->costs)
ExplainPropertyInteger("Planned Partitions", NULL,
aggstate->hash_planned_partitions, es);
@@ -3375,6 +3400,10 @@ show_hashagg_info(AggState *aggstate, ExplainState *es)
static void
show_tidbitmap_info(BitmapHeapScanState *planstate, ExplainState *es)
{
+ /* XXX: there's nothing portable we can show here ? */
+ if (!es->machine)
+ return;
+
if (es->format != EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT)
{
ExplainPropertyInteger("Exact Heap Blocks", NULL,
diff --git a/src/include/commands/explain.h b/src/include/commands/explain.h
index d849bae451..56817e31ef 100644
--- a/src/include/commands/explain.h
+++ b/src/include/commands/explain.h
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ typedef struct ExplainState
bool timing; /* print detailed node timing */
bool summary; /* print total planning and execution timing */
bool settings; /* print modified settings */
+ bool machine; /* print memory/disk and other machine-specific output */
ExplainFormat format; /* output format */
/* state for output formatting --- not reset for each new plan tree */
int indent; /* current indentation level */
diff --git a/src/test/isolation/expected/horizons.out b/src/test/isolation/expected/horizons.out
index 4150b2dee6..ee3e495a64 100644
--- a/src/test/isolation/expected/horizons.out
+++ b/src/test/isolation/expected/horizons.out
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Index Only Scan using horizons_tst_data_key on horizons_tst
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ step pruner_query:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ step pruner_delete:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ step pruner_query:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Index Only Scan using horizons_tst_data_key on horizons_tst
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ step pruner_query:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ step pruner_delete:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ step pruner_query:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ step ll_start:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ step pruner_query:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ step pruner_delete:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ step pruner_query:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ step ll_start:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ step pruner_query:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ step pruner_vacuum:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ step pruner_query:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ step ll_start:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ step pruner_query:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ step pruner_vacuum:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
@@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ step pruner_query:
step pruner_query:
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
?column?
diff --git a/src/test/isolation/specs/horizons.spec b/src/test/isolation/specs/horizons.spec
index d5239ff228..082205d36b 100644
--- a/src/test/isolation/specs/horizons.spec
+++ b/src/test/isolation/specs/horizons.spec
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ step pruner_vacuum
step pruner_query
{
SELECT explain_json($$
- EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
+ EXPLAIN (FORMAT json, BUFFERS, ANALYZE, machine)
SELECT * FROM horizons_tst ORDER BY data;$$)->0->'Plan'->'Heap Fetches';
}
diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/explain.out b/src/test/regress/expected/explain.out
index 188dc7ccec..36c20e0680 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/expected/explain.out
+++ b/src/test/regress/expected/explain.out
@@ -276,6 +276,61 @@ select explain_filter('explain (buffers, format json) select * from int8_tbl i8'
]
(1 row)
+-- HashAgg
+begin;
+SET work_mem='64kB';
+select explain_filter('explain (analyze) SELECT a, COUNT(1) FROM generate_series(1,9999)a GROUP BY 1');
+ explain_filter
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ HashAggregate (cost=N.N..N.N rows=N width=N) (actual time=N.N..N.N rows=N loops=N)
+ Group Key: a
+ Batches: N Memory Usage: NkB Disk Usage: NkB
+ -> Function Scan on generate_series a (cost=N.N..N.N rows=N width=N) (actual time=N.N..N.N rows=N loops=N)
+ Planning Time: N.N ms
+ Execution Time: N.N ms
+(6 rows)
+
+select explain_filter('explain (analyze, machine off) SELECT a, COUNT(1) FROM generate_series(1,9999)a GROUP BY 1');
+ explain_filter
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ HashAggregate (cost=N.N..N.N rows=N width=N) (actual time=N.N..N.N rows=N loops=N)
+ Group Key: a
+ -> Function Scan on generate_series a (cost=N.N..N.N rows=N width=N) (actual time=N.N..N.N rows=N loops=N)
+ Planning Time: N.N ms
+ Execution Time: N.N ms
+(5 rows)
+
+rollback;
+-- Bitmap scan
+begin;
+SET enable_indexscan=no;
+CREATE TABLE explainbitmap AS SELECT i AS a FROM generate_series(1,999) AS i;
+ANALYZE explainbitmap;
+CREATE INDEX ON explainbitmap(a);
+select explain_filter('explain (analyze) SELECT * FROM explainbitmap WHERE a<9');
+ explain_filter
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Bitmap Heap Scan on explainbitmap (cost=N.N..N.N rows=N width=N) (actual time=N.N..N.N rows=N loops=N)
+ Recheck Cond: (a < N)
+ Heap Blocks: exact=N
+ -> Bitmap Index Scan on explainbitmap_a_idx (cost=N.N..N.N rows=N width=N) (actual time=N.N..N.N rows=N loops=N)
+ Index Cond: (a < N)
+ Planning Time: N.N ms
+ Execution Time: N.N ms
+(7 rows)
+
+select explain_filter('explain (analyze, machine off) SELECT * FROM explainbitmap WHERE a<9');
+ explain_filter
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Bitmap Heap Scan on explainbitmap (cost=N.N..N.N rows=N width=N) (actual time=N.N..N.N rows=N loops=N)
+ Recheck Cond: (a < N)
+ -> Bitmap Index Scan on explainbitmap_a_idx (cost=N.N..N.N rows=N width=N) (actual time=N.N..N.N rows=N loops=N)
+ Index Cond: (a < N)
+ Planning Time: N.N ms
+ Execution Time: N.N ms
+(6 rows)
+
+rollback;
-- SETTINGS option
-- We have to ignore other settings that might be imposed by the environment,
-- so printing the whole Settings field unfortunately won't do.
diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/incremental_sort.out b/src/test/regress/expected/incremental_sort.out
index 545e301e48..56a32df536 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/expected/incremental_sort.out
+++ b/src/test/regress/expected/incremental_sort.out
@@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ select explain_analyze_without_memory('select * from (select * from t order by a
Full-sort Groups: 2 Sort Methods: top-N heapsort, quicksort Average Memory: NNkB Peak Memory: NNkB
-> Sort (actual rows=101 loops=1)
Sort Key: t.a
- Sort Method: quicksort Memory: NNkB
+ Sort Method: quicksort
-> Seq Scan on t (actual rows=1000 loops=1)
(9 rows)
@@ -745,7 +745,7 @@ select explain_analyze_without_memory('select * from (select * from t order by a
Pre-sorted Groups: 5 Sort Methods: top-N heapsort, quicksort Average Memory: NNkB Peak Memory: NNkB
-> Sort (actual rows=1000 loops=1)
Sort Key: t.a
- Sort Method: quicksort Memory: NNkB
+ Sort Method: quicksort
-> Seq Scan on t (actual rows=1000 loops=1)
(10 rows)
diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/memoize.out b/src/test/regress/expected/memoize.out
index 4ca0bd1f1e..fbe6bed433 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/expected/memoize.out
+++ b/src/test/regress/expected/memoize.out
@@ -21,9 +21,7 @@ begin
end if;
ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'Evictions: 0', 'Evictions: Zero');
ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'Evictions: \d+', 'Evictions: N');
- ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'Memory Usage: \d+', 'Memory Usage: N');
- ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'Heap Fetches: \d+', 'Heap Fetches: N');
- ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'loops=\d+', 'loops=N');
+ ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'loops=\d+', 'loops=N');
return next ln;
end loop;
end;
@@ -45,11 +43,10 @@ WHERE t2.unique1 < 1000;', false);
-> Memoize (actual rows=1 loops=N)
Cache Key: t2.twenty
Cache Mode: logical
- Hits: 980 Misses: 20 Evictions: Zero Overflows: 0 Memory Usage: NkB
+ Hits: 980 Misses: 20 Evictions: Zero Overflows: 0
-> Index Only Scan using tenk1_unique1 on tenk1 t1 (actual rows=1 loops=N)
Index Cond: (unique1 = t2.twenty)
- Heap Fetches: N
-(12 rows)
+(11 rows)
-- And check we get the expected results.
SELECT COUNT(*),AVG(t1.unique1) FROM tenk1 t1
@@ -75,11 +72,10 @@ WHERE t1.unique1 < 1000;', false);
-> Memoize (actual rows=1 loops=N)
Cache Key: t1.twenty
Cache Mode: logical
- Hits: 980 Misses: 20 Evictions: Zero Overflows: 0 Memory Usage: NkB
+ Hits: 980 Misses: 20 Evictions: Zero Overflows: 0
-> Index Only Scan using tenk1_unique1 on tenk1 t2 (actual rows=1 loops=N)
Index Cond: (unique1 = t1.twenty)
- Heap Fetches: N
-(12 rows)
+(11 rows)
-- And check we get the expected results.
SELECT COUNT(*),AVG(t2.unique1) FROM tenk1 t1,
@@ -110,11 +106,10 @@ WHERE t2.unique1 < 1200;', true);
-> Memoize (actual rows=1 loops=N)
Cache Key: t2.thousand
Cache Mode: logical
- Hits: N Misses: N Evictions: N Overflows: 0 Memory Usage: NkB
+ Hits: N Misses: N Evictions: N Overflows: 0
-> Index Only Scan using tenk1_unique1 on tenk1 t1 (actual rows=1 loops=N)
Index Cond: (unique1 = t2.thousand)
- Heap Fetches: N
-(12 rows)
+(11 rows)
CREATE TABLE flt (f float);
CREATE INDEX flt_f_idx ON flt (f);
@@ -128,15 +123,13 @@ SELECT * FROM flt f1 INNER JOIN flt f2 ON f1.f = f2.f;', false);
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nested Loop (actual rows=4 loops=N)
-> Index Only Scan using flt_f_idx on flt f1 (actual rows=2 loops=N)
- Heap Fetches: N
-> Memoize (actual rows=2 loops=N)
Cache Key: f1.f
Cache Mode: logical
- Hits: 1 Misses: 1 Evictions: Zero Overflows: 0 Memory Usage: NkB
+ Hits: 1 Misses: 1 Evictions: Zero Overflows: 0
-> Index Only Scan using flt_f_idx on flt f2 (actual rows=2 loops=N)
Index Cond: (f = f1.f)
- Heap Fetches: N
-(10 rows)
+(8 rows)
-- Ensure memoize operates in binary mode
SELECT explain_memoize('
@@ -145,15 +138,13 @@ SELECT * FROM flt f1 INNER JOIN flt f2 ON f1.f >= f2.f;', false);
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nested Loop (actual rows=4 loops=N)
-> Index Only Scan using flt_f_idx on flt f1 (actual rows=2 loops=N)
- Heap Fetches: N
-> Memoize (actual rows=2 loops=N)
Cache Key: f1.f
Cache Mode: binary
- Hits: 0 Misses: 2 Evictions: Zero Overflows: 0 Memory Usage: NkB
+ Hits: 0 Misses: 2 Evictions: Zero Overflows: 0
-> Index Only Scan using flt_f_idx on flt f2 (actual rows=2 loops=N)
Index Cond: (f <= f1.f)
- Heap Fetches: N
-(10 rows)
+(8 rows)
DROP TABLE flt;
-- Exercise Memoize in binary mode with a large fixed width type and a
@@ -175,7 +166,7 @@ SELECT * FROM strtest s1 INNER JOIN strtest s2 ON s1.n >= s2.n;', false);
-> Memoize (actual rows=4 loops=N)
Cache Key: s1.n
Cache Mode: binary
- Hits: 3 Misses: 3 Evictions: Zero Overflows: 0 Memory Usage: NkB
+ Hits: 3 Misses: 3 Evictions: Zero Overflows: 0
-> Index Scan using strtest_n_idx on strtest s2 (actual rows=4 loops=N)
Index Cond: (n <= s1.n)
(8 rows)
@@ -190,7 +181,7 @@ SELECT * FROM strtest s1 INNER JOIN strtest s2 ON s1.t >= s2.t;', false);
-> Memoize (actual rows=4 loops=N)
Cache Key: s1.t
Cache Mode: binary
- Hits: 3 Misses: 3 Evictions: Zero Overflows: 0 Memory Usage: NkB
+ Hits: 3 Misses: 3 Evictions: Zero Overflows: 0
-> Index Scan using strtest_t_idx on strtest s2 (actual rows=4 loops=N)
Index Cond: (t <= s1.t)
(8 rows)
diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/partition_prune.out b/src/test/regress/expected/partition_prune.out
index 7555764c77..cabadd48b8 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/expected/partition_prune.out
+++ b/src/test/regress/expected/partition_prune.out
@@ -2479,7 +2479,6 @@ update ab_a1 set b = 3 from ab where ab.a = 1 and ab.a = ab_a1.a;
Index Cond: (a = 1)
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on ab_a1_b2 ab_a1_2 (actual rows=1 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (a = 1)
- Heap Blocks: exact=1
-> Bitmap Index Scan on ab_a1_b2_a_idx (actual rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (a = 1)
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on ab_a1_b3 ab_a1_3 (actual rows=0 loops=1)
@@ -2494,14 +2493,13 @@ update ab_a1 set b = 3 from ab where ab.a = 1 and ab.a = ab_a1.a;
Index Cond: (a = 1)
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on ab_a1_b2 ab_2 (actual rows=1 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (a = 1)
- Heap Blocks: exact=1
-> Bitmap Index Scan on ab_a1_b2_a_idx (actual rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (a = 1)
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on ab_a1_b3 ab_3 (actual rows=0 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (a = 1)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on ab_a1_b3_a_idx (actual rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (a = 1)
-(34 rows)
+(32 rows)
table ab;
a | b
diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/select_parallel.out b/src/test/regress/expected/select_parallel.out
index 4ea1aa7dfd..9f36c62741 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/expected/select_parallel.out
+++ b/src/test/regress/expected/select_parallel.out
@@ -562,24 +562,11 @@ explain (analyze, timing off, summary off, costs off)
alter table tenk2 reset (parallel_workers);
reset work_mem;
-create function explain_parallel_sort_stats() returns setof text
-language plpgsql as
-$$
-declare ln text;
-begin
- for ln in
- explain (analyze, timing off, summary off, costs off)
- select * from
+explain (analyze)
+select * from
(select ten from tenk1 where ten < 100 order by ten) ss
- right join (values (1),(2),(3)) v(x) on true
- loop
- ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'Memory: \S*', 'Memory: xxx');
- return next ln;
- end loop;
-end;
-$$;
-select * from explain_parallel_sort_stats();
- explain_parallel_sort_stats
+ right join (values (1),(2),(3)) v(x) on true;
+ QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nested Loop Left Join (actual rows=30000 loops=1)
-> Values Scan on "*VALUES*" (actual rows=3 loops=1)
@@ -588,11 +575,11 @@ select * from explain_parallel_sort_stats();
Workers Launched: 4
-> Sort (actual rows=2000 loops=15)
Sort Key: tenk1.ten
- Sort Method: quicksort Memory: xxx
- Worker 0: Sort Method: quicksort Memory: xxx
- Worker 1: Sort Method: quicksort Memory: xxx
- Worker 2: Sort Method: quicksort Memory: xxx
- Worker 3: Sort Method: quicksort Memory: xxx
+ Sort Method: quicksort
+ Worker 0: Sort Method: quicksort
+ Worker 1: Sort Method: quicksort
+ Worker 2: Sort Method: quicksort
+ Worker 3: Sort Method: quicksort
-> Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=2000 loops=15)
Filter: (ten < 100)
(14 rows)
@@ -603,7 +590,6 @@ reset enable_mergejoin;
reset enable_material;
reset effective_io_concurrency;
drop table bmscantest;
-drop function explain_parallel_sort_stats();
-- test parallel merge join path.
set enable_hashjoin to off;
set enable_nestloop to off;
diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/subselect.out b/src/test/regress/expected/subselect.out
index 4e8ddc7061..199badece3 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/expected/subselect.out
+++ b/src/test/regress/expected/subselect.out
@@ -1527,27 +1527,15 @@ insert into sq_limit values
(6, 2, 2),
(7, 3, 3),
(8, 4, 4);
-create function explain_sq_limit() returns setof text language plpgsql as
-$$
-declare ln text;
-begin
- for ln in
- explain (analyze, summary off, timing off, costs off)
- select * from (select pk,c2 from sq_limit order by c1,pk) as x limit 3
- loop
- ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'Memory: \S*', 'Memory: xxx');
- return next ln;
- end loop;
-end;
-$$;
-select * from explain_sq_limit();
- explain_sq_limit
+explain (analyze)
+ select * from (select pk,c2 from sq_limit order by c1,pk) as x limit 3;
+ QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (actual rows=3 loops=1)
-> Subquery Scan on x (actual rows=3 loops=1)
-> Sort (actual rows=3 loops=1)
Sort Key: sq_limit.c1, sq_limit.pk
- Sort Method: top-N heapsort Memory: xxx
+ Sort Method: top-N heapsort
-> Seq Scan on sq_limit (actual rows=8 loops=1)
(6 rows)
@@ -1559,7 +1547,6 @@ select * from (select pk,c2 from sq_limit order by c1,pk) as x limit 3;
2 | 2
(3 rows)
-drop function explain_sq_limit();
drop table sq_limit;
--
-- Ensure that backward scan direction isn't propagated into
diff --git a/src/test/regress/sql/explain.sql b/src/test/regress/sql/explain.sql
index f91d1004d5..c38857d346 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/sql/explain.sql
+++ b/src/test/regress/sql/explain.sql
@@ -72,6 +72,23 @@ select explain_filter('explain (analyze, buffers, format yaml) select * from int
select explain_filter('explain (buffers, format text) select * from int8_tbl i8');
select explain_filter('explain (buffers, format json) select * from int8_tbl i8');
+-- HashAgg
+begin;
+SET work_mem='64kB';
+select explain_filter('explain (analyze) SELECT a, COUNT(1) FROM generate_series(1,9999)a GROUP BY 1');
+select explain_filter('explain (analyze, machine off) SELECT a, COUNT(1) FROM generate_series(1,9999)a GROUP BY 1');
+rollback;
+
+-- Bitmap scan
+begin;
+SET enable_indexscan=no;
+CREATE TABLE explainbitmap AS SELECT i AS a FROM generate_series(1,999) AS i;
+ANALYZE explainbitmap;
+CREATE INDEX ON explainbitmap(a);
+select explain_filter('explain (analyze) SELECT * FROM explainbitmap WHERE a<9');
+select explain_filter('explain (analyze, machine off) SELECT * FROM explainbitmap WHERE a<9');
+rollback;
+
-- SETTINGS option
-- We have to ignore other settings that might be imposed by the environment,
-- so printing the whole Settings field unfortunately won't do.
diff --git a/src/test/regress/sql/memoize.sql b/src/test/regress/sql/memoize.sql
index c6ed5a2aa6..1368f8dd18 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/sql/memoize.sql
+++ b/src/test/regress/sql/memoize.sql
@@ -22,9 +22,7 @@ begin
end if;
ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'Evictions: 0', 'Evictions: Zero');
ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'Evictions: \d+', 'Evictions: N');
- ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'Memory Usage: \d+', 'Memory Usage: N');
- ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'Heap Fetches: \d+', 'Heap Fetches: N');
- ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'loops=\d+', 'loops=N');
+ ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'loops=\d+', 'loops=N');
return next ln;
end loop;
end;
diff --git a/src/test/regress/sql/select_parallel.sql b/src/test/regress/sql/select_parallel.sql
index f924731248..fc58616123 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/sql/select_parallel.sql
+++ b/src/test/regress/sql/select_parallel.sql
@@ -221,23 +221,10 @@ explain (analyze, timing off, summary off, costs off)
alter table tenk2 reset (parallel_workers);
reset work_mem;
-create function explain_parallel_sort_stats() returns setof text
-language plpgsql as
-$$
-declare ln text;
-begin
- for ln in
- explain (analyze, timing off, summary off, costs off)
- select * from
+explain (analyze)
+select * from
(select ten from tenk1 where ten < 100 order by ten) ss
- right join (values (1),(2),(3)) v(x) on true
- loop
- ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'Memory: \S*', 'Memory: xxx');
- return next ln;
- end loop;
-end;
-$$;
-select * from explain_parallel_sort_stats();
+ right join (values (1),(2),(3)) v(x) on true;
reset enable_indexscan;
reset enable_hashjoin;
@@ -245,7 +232,6 @@ reset enable_mergejoin;
reset enable_material;
reset effective_io_concurrency;
drop table bmscantest;
-drop function explain_parallel_sort_stats();
-- test parallel merge join path.
set enable_hashjoin to off;
diff --git a/src/test/regress/sql/subselect.sql b/src/test/regress/sql/subselect.sql
index e879999708..82285250e7 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/sql/subselect.sql
+++ b/src/test/regress/sql/subselect.sql
@@ -797,26 +797,11 @@ insert into sq_limit values
(7, 3, 3),
(8, 4, 4);
-create function explain_sq_limit() returns setof text language plpgsql as
-$$
-declare ln text;
-begin
- for ln in
- explain (analyze, summary off, timing off, costs off)
- select * from (select pk,c2 from sq_limit order by c1,pk) as x limit 3
- loop
- ln := regexp_replace(ln, 'Memory: \S*', 'Memory: xxx');
- return next ln;
- end loop;
-end;
-$$;
-
-select * from explain_sq_limit();
+explain (analyze)
+ select * from (select pk,c2 from sq_limit order by c1,pk) as x limit 3;
select * from (select pk,c2 from sq_limit order by c1,pk) as x limit 3;
-drop function explain_sq_limit();
-
drop table sq_limit;
--
--
2.17.0
--MOLI6A2k/lnHENyK
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="0005-f-Rows-removed-by-filter.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-03-31 09:46 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-03-31 09:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
---
src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
index fe0490259e9..cfd2e08ea23 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
#include "parser/parse_coerce.h"
#include "pgstat.h"
#include "rewrite/rewriteHandler.h"
+#include "storage/lmgr.h"
#include "tcop/pquery.h"
#include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
#include "utils/acl.h"
@@ -355,24 +356,45 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tupDesc = RelationGetDescr(rel);
/* Check for pre-existing definition */
- oldtup = SearchSysCache3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
- PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
- PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
- ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
{
/* There is one; okay to replace it? */
Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
- Datum proargnames;
- bool isnull;
- const char *dropcmd;
if (!replace)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_FUNCTION),
errmsg("function \"%s\" already exists with same argument types",
procedureName)));
+
+ /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
+ LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
+ * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
+ * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
+ * of function definition getting changed.
+ */
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ }
+
+ if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
+ {
+
+ Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
+ Datum proargnames;
+ bool isnull;
+ const char *dropcmd;
+
if (!object_ownercheck(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, proowner))
aclcheck_error(ACLCHECK_NOT_OWNER, OBJECT_FUNCTION,
procedureName);
@@ -553,11 +575,13 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
replaces[Anum_pg_proc_proowner - 1] = false;
replaces[Anum_pg_proc_proacl - 1] = false;
+
+
/* Okay, do it... */
tup = heap_modify_tuple(oldtup, tupDesc, values, nulls, replaces);
CatalogTupleUpdate(rel, &tup->t_self, tup);
- ReleaseSysCache(oldtup);
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
is_update = true;
}
else
--
2.34.1
--Multipart=_Mon__31_Mar_2025_20_22_35_+0900_icGj3NSLeP4Y27Qc--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v9 1/4] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-03-31 09:46 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-03-31 09:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
Previously, concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION commands could fail
with an internal error "tuple concurrently updated". This occurred
because multiple sessions attempted to modify the same catalog tuple
simultaneously.
To prevent this, ensure that an exclusive lock on the function object
is acquired earlier in the process.
Additionally, if the target function is dropped by another session while
waiting for the lock, a new function is created instead.
---
src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
index 75b17fed15e..889e9b68a0d 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
#include "parser/parse_coerce.h"
#include "pgstat.h"
#include "rewrite/rewriteHandler.h"
+#include "storage/lmgr.h"
#include "tcop/pquery.h"
#include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
#include "utils/acl.h"
@@ -383,24 +384,48 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tupDesc = RelationGetDescr(rel);
/* Check for pre-existing definition */
- oldtup = SearchSysCache3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
- PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
- PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
- ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
{
/* There is one; okay to replace it? */
Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
- Datum proargnames;
- bool isnull;
- const char *dropcmd;
+ Oid procoid = oldproc->oid;
if (!replace)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_FUNCTION),
errmsg("function \"%s\" already exists with same argument types",
procedureName)));
+
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
+
+ /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
+ LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, procoid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
+ * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
+ * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
+ * of function definition getting changed.
+ */
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ }
+
+ if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
+ {
+
+ Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
+ Datum proargnames;
+ bool isnull;
+ const char *dropcmd;
+
if (!object_ownercheck(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, proowner))
aclcheck_error(ACLCHECK_NOT_OWNER, OBJECT_FUNCTION,
procedureName);
@@ -585,7 +610,7 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tup = heap_modify_tuple(oldtup, tupDesc, values, nulls, replaces);
CatalogTupleUpdate(rel, &tup->t_self, tup);
- ReleaseSysCache(oldtup);
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
is_update = true;
}
else
--
2.43.0
--Multipart=_Wed__20_Aug_2025_17_01_56_+0900_8Htb/SMotxazoe2R--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v6 1/4] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-03-31 09:46 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-03-31 09:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
Previously, concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION commands could fail
with an internal error "tuple concurrently updated". This occurred
because multiple sessions attempted to modify the same catalog tuple
simultaneously.
To prevent this, ensure that an exclusive lock on the function object
is acquired earlier in the process.
Additionally, if the target function is dropped by another session while
waiting for the lock, a new function is created instead.
---
src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
index 5fdcf24d5f8..734508c7f58 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
#include "parser/parse_coerce.h"
#include "pgstat.h"
#include "rewrite/rewriteHandler.h"
+#include "storage/lmgr.h"
#include "tcop/pquery.h"
#include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
#include "utils/acl.h"
@@ -383,24 +384,47 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tupDesc = RelationGetDescr(rel);
/* Check for pre-existing definition */
- oldtup = SearchSysCache3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
- PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
- PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
- ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
{
/* There is one; okay to replace it? */
Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
- Datum proargnames;
- bool isnull;
- const char *dropcmd;
if (!replace)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_FUNCTION),
errmsg("function \"%s\" already exists with same argument types",
procedureName)));
+
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
+
+ /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
+ LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
+ * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
+ * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
+ * of function definition getting changed.
+ */
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ }
+
+ if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
+ {
+
+ Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
+ Datum proargnames;
+ bool isnull;
+ const char *dropcmd;
+
if (!object_ownercheck(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, proowner))
aclcheck_error(ACLCHECK_NOT_OWNER, OBJECT_FUNCTION,
procedureName);
@@ -585,7 +609,7 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tup = heap_modify_tuple(oldtup, tupDesc, values, nulls, replaces);
CatalogTupleUpdate(rel, &tup->t_self, tup);
- ReleaseSysCache(oldtup);
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
is_update = true;
}
else
--
2.43.0
--Multipart=_Tue__1_Jul_2025_19_47_26_+0900_Hfm68M1moVPepmMg--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v7 1/4] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-03-31 09:46 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-03-31 09:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
Previously, concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION commands could fail
with an internal error "tuple concurrently updated". This occurred
because multiple sessions attempted to modify the same catalog tuple
simultaneously.
To prevent this, ensure that an exclusive lock on the function object
is acquired earlier in the process.
Additionally, if the target function is dropped by another session while
waiting for the lock, a new function is created instead.
---
src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
index 5fdcf24d5f8..734508c7f58 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
#include "parser/parse_coerce.h"
#include "pgstat.h"
#include "rewrite/rewriteHandler.h"
+#include "storage/lmgr.h"
#include "tcop/pquery.h"
#include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
#include "utils/acl.h"
@@ -383,24 +384,47 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tupDesc = RelationGetDescr(rel);
/* Check for pre-existing definition */
- oldtup = SearchSysCache3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
- PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
- PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
- ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
{
/* There is one; okay to replace it? */
Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
- Datum proargnames;
- bool isnull;
- const char *dropcmd;
if (!replace)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_FUNCTION),
errmsg("function \"%s\" already exists with same argument types",
procedureName)));
+
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
+
+ /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
+ LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
+ * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
+ * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
+ * of function definition getting changed.
+ */
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ }
+
+ if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
+ {
+
+ Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
+ Datum proargnames;
+ bool isnull;
+ const char *dropcmd;
+
if (!object_ownercheck(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, proowner))
aclcheck_error(ACLCHECK_NOT_OWNER, OBJECT_FUNCTION,
procedureName);
@@ -585,7 +609,7 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tup = heap_modify_tuple(oldtup, tupDesc, values, nulls, replaces);
CatalogTupleUpdate(rel, &tup->t_self, tup);
- ReleaseSysCache(oldtup);
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
is_update = true;
}
else
--
2.43.0
--Multipart=_Thu__3_Jul_2025_23_18_12_+0900_9OhecyAr5v_aEYXi--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v8 1/4] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-03-31 09:46 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-03-31 09:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
Previously, concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION commands could fail
with an internal error "tuple concurrently updated". This occurred
because multiple sessions attempted to modify the same catalog tuple
simultaneously.
To prevent this, ensure that an exclusive lock on the function object
is acquired earlier in the process.
Additionally, if the target function is dropped by another session while
waiting for the lock, a new function is created instead.
---
src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
index 5fdcf24d5f8..734508c7f58 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
#include "parser/parse_coerce.h"
#include "pgstat.h"
#include "rewrite/rewriteHandler.h"
+#include "storage/lmgr.h"
#include "tcop/pquery.h"
#include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
#include "utils/acl.h"
@@ -383,24 +384,47 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tupDesc = RelationGetDescr(rel);
/* Check for pre-existing definition */
- oldtup = SearchSysCache3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
- PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
- PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
- ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
{
/* There is one; okay to replace it? */
Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
- Datum proargnames;
- bool isnull;
- const char *dropcmd;
if (!replace)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_FUNCTION),
errmsg("function \"%s\" already exists with same argument types",
procedureName)));
+
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
+
+ /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
+ LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
+ * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
+ * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
+ * of function definition getting changed.
+ */
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ }
+
+ if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
+ {
+
+ Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
+ Datum proargnames;
+ bool isnull;
+ const char *dropcmd;
+
if (!object_ownercheck(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, proowner))
aclcheck_error(ACLCHECK_NOT_OWNER, OBJECT_FUNCTION,
procedureName);
@@ -585,7 +609,7 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tup = heap_modify_tuple(oldtup, tupDesc, values, nulls, replaces);
CatalogTupleUpdate(rel, &tup->t_self, tup);
- ReleaseSysCache(oldtup);
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
is_update = true;
}
else
--
2.43.0
--Multipart=_Thu__17_Jul_2025_14_09_14_+0900_WdPnEQ7x1hu.aLa8--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v10 1/4] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-03-31 09:46 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-03-31 09:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
Previously, concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION commands could fail
with an internal error "tuple concurrently updated". This occurred
because multiple sessions attempted to modify the same catalog tuple
simultaneously.
To prevent this, ensure that an exclusive lock on the function object
is acquired earlier in the process.
Additionally, if the target function is dropped by another session while
waiting for the lock, a new function is created instead.
---
src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
index b89b9ccda0e..b459badf074 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
#include "parser/parse_coerce.h"
#include "pgstat.h"
#include "rewrite/rewriteHandler.h"
+#include "storage/lmgr.h"
#include "tcop/pquery.h"
#include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
#include "utils/acl.h"
@@ -383,24 +384,48 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tupDesc = RelationGetDescr(rel);
/* Check for pre-existing definition */
- oldtup = SearchSysCache3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
- PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
- PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
- ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
{
/* There is one; okay to replace it? */
Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
- Datum proargnames;
- bool isnull;
- const char *dropcmd;
+ Oid procoid = oldproc->oid;
if (!replace)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_FUNCTION),
errmsg("function \"%s\" already exists with same argument types",
procedureName)));
+
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
+
+ /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
+ LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, procoid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
+ * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
+ * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
+ * of function definition getting changed.
+ */
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ }
+
+ if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
+ {
+
+ Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
+ Datum proargnames;
+ bool isnull;
+ const char *dropcmd;
+
if (!object_ownercheck(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, proowner))
aclcheck_error(ACLCHECK_NOT_OWNER, OBJECT_FUNCTION,
procedureName);
@@ -585,7 +610,7 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tup = heap_modify_tuple(oldtup, tupDesc, values, nulls, replaces);
CatalogTupleUpdate(rel, &tup->t_self, tup);
- ReleaseSysCache(oldtup);
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
is_update = true;
}
else
--
2.43.0
--Multipart=_Tue__30_Sep_2025_11_01_58_+0900_79ESurbZ01uj0JWr--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 1/2] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-03-31 09:46 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-03-31 09:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
---
src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
index fe0490259e9..3a15374b261 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
#include "parser/parse_coerce.h"
#include "pgstat.h"
#include "rewrite/rewriteHandler.h"
+#include "storage/lmgr.h"
#include "tcop/pquery.h"
#include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
#include "utils/acl.h"
@@ -355,24 +356,45 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tupDesc = RelationGetDescr(rel);
/* Check for pre-existing definition */
- oldtup = SearchSysCache3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
- PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
- PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
- ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
{
/* There is one; okay to replace it? */
Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
- Datum proargnames;
- bool isnull;
- const char *dropcmd;
if (!replace)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_FUNCTION),
errmsg("function \"%s\" already exists with same argument types",
procedureName)));
+
+ /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
+ LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
+ * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
+ * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
+ * of function definition getting changed.
+ */
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ }
+
+ if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
+ {
+
+ Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
+ Datum proargnames;
+ bool isnull;
+ const char *dropcmd;
+
if (!object_ownercheck(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, proowner))
aclcheck_error(ACLCHECK_NOT_OWNER, OBJECT_FUNCTION,
procedureName);
@@ -557,7 +579,7 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tup = heap_modify_tuple(oldtup, tupDesc, values, nulls, replaces);
CatalogTupleUpdate(rel, &tup->t_self, tup);
- ReleaseSysCache(oldtup);
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
is_update = true;
}
else
--
2.43.0
--Multipart=_Tue__27_May_2025_03_17_51_+0900_4z1nO_cGkjxsWjZt--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 1/3] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-03-31 09:46 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-03-31 09:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
Previously, concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION commands could fail
with an internal error "tuple concurrently updated". This occurred
because multiple sessions attempted to modify the same catalog tuple
simultaneously.
To prevent this, ensure that an exclusive lock on the function object
is acquired earlier in the process.
Additionally, if the target function is dropped by another session while
waiting for the lock, a new function is created instead.
---
src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
index 5fdcf24d5f8..a35696480c7 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
#include "parser/parse_coerce.h"
#include "pgstat.h"
#include "rewrite/rewriteHandler.h"
+#include "storage/lmgr.h"
#include "tcop/pquery.h"
#include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
#include "utils/acl.h"
@@ -383,24 +384,45 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tupDesc = RelationGetDescr(rel);
/* Check for pre-existing definition */
- oldtup = SearchSysCache3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
- PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
- PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
- ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
{
/* There is one; okay to replace it? */
Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
- Datum proargnames;
- bool isnull;
- const char *dropcmd;
if (!replace)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_FUNCTION),
errmsg("function \"%s\" already exists with same argument types",
procedureName)));
+
+ /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
+ LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
+ * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
+ * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
+ * of function definition getting changed.
+ */
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ }
+
+ if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
+ {
+
+ Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
+ Datum proargnames;
+ bool isnull;
+ const char *dropcmd;
+
if (!object_ownercheck(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, proowner))
aclcheck_error(ACLCHECK_NOT_OWNER, OBJECT_FUNCTION,
procedureName);
@@ -585,7 +607,7 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tup = heap_modify_tuple(oldtup, tupDesc, values, nulls, replaces);
CatalogTupleUpdate(rel, &tup->t_self, tup);
- ReleaseSysCache(oldtup);
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
is_update = true;
}
else
--
2.43.0
--Multipart=_Thu__5_Jun_2025_16_26_08_+0900_Z3LZV.DHOLuCekYi--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v4 1/3] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-03-31 09:46 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-03-31 09:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
Previously, concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION commands could fail
with an internal error "tuple concurrently updated". This occurred
because multiple sessions attempted to modify the same catalog tuple
simultaneously.
To prevent this, ensure that an exclusive lock on the function object
is acquired earlier in the process.
Additionally, if the target function is dropped by another session while
waiting for the lock, a new function is created instead.
---
src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
index 5fdcf24d5f8..a35696480c7 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
#include "parser/parse_coerce.h"
#include "pgstat.h"
#include "rewrite/rewriteHandler.h"
+#include "storage/lmgr.h"
#include "tcop/pquery.h"
#include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
#include "utils/acl.h"
@@ -383,24 +384,45 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tupDesc = RelationGetDescr(rel);
/* Check for pre-existing definition */
- oldtup = SearchSysCache3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
- PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
- PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
- ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
{
/* There is one; okay to replace it? */
Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
- Datum proargnames;
- bool isnull;
- const char *dropcmd;
if (!replace)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_FUNCTION),
errmsg("function \"%s\" already exists with same argument types",
procedureName)));
+
+ /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
+ LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
+ * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
+ * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
+ * of function definition getting changed.
+ */
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ }
+
+ if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
+ {
+
+ Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
+ Datum proargnames;
+ bool isnull;
+ const char *dropcmd;
+
if (!object_ownercheck(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, proowner))
aclcheck_error(ACLCHECK_NOT_OWNER, OBJECT_FUNCTION,
procedureName);
@@ -585,7 +607,7 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tup = heap_modify_tuple(oldtup, tupDesc, values, nulls, replaces);
CatalogTupleUpdate(rel, &tup->t_self, tup);
- ReleaseSysCache(oldtup);
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
is_update = true;
}
else
--
2.43.0
--Multipart=_Thu__5_Jun_2025_19_20_58_+0900_MlxgAk6H+gGvpZew--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v5 1/3] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-03-31 09:46 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-03-31 09:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
Previously, concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION commands could fail
with an internal error "tuple concurrently updated". This occurred
because multiple sessions attempted to modify the same catalog tuple
simultaneously.
To prevent this, ensure that an exclusive lock on the function object
is acquired earlier in the process.
Additionally, if the target function is dropped by another session while
waiting for the lock, a new function is created instead.
---
src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
index 5fdcf24d5f8..734508c7f58 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
#include "parser/parse_coerce.h"
#include "pgstat.h"
#include "rewrite/rewriteHandler.h"
+#include "storage/lmgr.h"
#include "tcop/pquery.h"
#include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
#include "utils/acl.h"
@@ -383,24 +384,47 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tupDesc = RelationGetDescr(rel);
/* Check for pre-existing definition */
- oldtup = SearchSysCache3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
- PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
- PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
- ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
{
/* There is one; okay to replace it? */
Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
- Datum proargnames;
- bool isnull;
- const char *dropcmd;
if (!replace)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_FUNCTION),
errmsg("function \"%s\" already exists with same argument types",
procedureName)));
+
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
+
+ /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
+ LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
+ * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
+ * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
+ * of function definition getting changed.
+ */
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ }
+
+ if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
+ {
+
+ Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
+ Datum proargnames;
+ bool isnull;
+ const char *dropcmd;
+
if (!object_ownercheck(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, proowner))
aclcheck_error(ACLCHECK_NOT_OWNER, OBJECT_FUNCTION,
procedureName);
@@ -585,7 +609,7 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tup = heap_modify_tuple(oldtup, tupDesc, values, nulls, replaces);
CatalogTupleUpdate(rel, &tup->t_self, tup);
- ReleaseSysCache(oldtup);
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
is_update = true;
}
else
--
2.43.0
--Multipart=_Mon__30_Jun_2025_17_47_44_+0900_2lefeRoUXzTcBKe0--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-03-31 09:46 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-03-31 09:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
---
src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
index fe0490259e9..cfd2e08ea23 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
#include "parser/parse_coerce.h"
#include "pgstat.h"
#include "rewrite/rewriteHandler.h"
+#include "storage/lmgr.h"
#include "tcop/pquery.h"
#include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
#include "utils/acl.h"
@@ -355,24 +356,45 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
tupDesc = RelationGetDescr(rel);
/* Check for pre-existing definition */
- oldtup = SearchSysCache3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
- PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
- PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
- ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
{
/* There is one; okay to replace it? */
Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
- Datum proargnames;
- bool isnull;
- const char *dropcmd;
if (!replace)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_FUNCTION),
errmsg("function \"%s\" already exists with same argument types",
procedureName)));
+
+ /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
+ LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
+ * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
+ * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
+ * of function definition getting changed.
+ */
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
+ }
+
+ if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
+ {
+
+ Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
+ Datum proargnames;
+ bool isnull;
+ const char *dropcmd;
+
if (!object_ownercheck(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, proowner))
aclcheck_error(ACLCHECK_NOT_OWNER, OBJECT_FUNCTION,
procedureName);
@@ -553,11 +575,13 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
replaces[Anum_pg_proc_proowner - 1] = false;
replaces[Anum_pg_proc_proacl - 1] = false;
+
+
/* Okay, do it... */
tup = heap_modify_tuple(oldtup, tupDesc, values, nulls, replaces);
CatalogTupleUpdate(rel, &tup->t_self, tup);
- ReleaseSysCache(oldtup);
+ heap_freetuple(oldtup);
is_update = true;
}
else
--
2.34.1
--Multipart=_Mon__31_Mar_2025_20_00_57_+0900_=a2jVPgfV36qgodU--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-03-31 11:00 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-03-31 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-hackers
Hi,
I found that multiple sessions concurrently execute CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
for a same function, the error "tuple concurrently updated" is raised. This is
an internal error output by elog, also the message is not user-friendly.
I've attached a patch to prevent this internal error by locking an exclusive
lock before the command and get the read tuple after acquiring the lock.
Also, if the function has been removed during the lock waiting, the new entry
is created.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-03-31 11:22 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 3 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-03-31 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 20:00:57 +0900
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found that multiple sessions concurrently execute CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
> for a same function, the error "tuple concurrently updated" is raised. This is
> an internal error output by elog, also the message is not user-friendly.
>
> I've attached a patch to prevent this internal error by locking an exclusive
> lock before the command and get the read tuple after acquiring the lock.
> Also, if the function has been removed during the lock waiting, the new entry
> is created.
I also found the same error is raised when concurrent ALTER FUNCTION commands are
executed. I've added a patch to fix this in the similar way.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-05-20 15:30 Jim Jones <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Jim Jones @ 2025-05-20 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers
Hi!
On 31.03.25 13:22, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 20:00:57 +0900
> Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I found that multiple sessions concurrently execute CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
>> for a same function, the error "tuple concurrently updated" is raised. This is
>> an internal error output by elog, also the message is not user-friendly.
>>
>> I've attached a patch to prevent this internal error by locking an exclusive
>> lock before the command and get the read tuple after acquiring the lock.
>> Also, if the function has been removed during the lock waiting, the new entry
>> is created.
> I also found the same error is raised when concurrent ALTER FUNCTION commands are
> executed. I've added a patch to fix this in the similar way.
>
> Regards,
> Yugo Nagata
I just briefly tested this patch and it seems to work as expected for
CREATE OF REPLACE FUNCTION:
-- Session 1 (t1):
postgres=# BEGIN;
BEGIN
postgres=*# CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f1()
RETURNS INT LANGUAGE plpgsql AS
$$ BEGIN RETURN 1; END;$$;
CREATE FUNCTION
-- Session 2 (t2)
postgres=# CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f1()
RETURNS INT LANGUAGE plpgsql AS
$$ BEGIN RETURN 2; END;$$;
(wait)
-- Session 3 (t3)
postgres=# CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f1()
RETURNS INT LANGUAGE plpgsql AS
$$ BEGIN RETURN 3; END;$$;
(wait)
-- Session 4 (t4)
postgres=# CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f1()
RETURNS INT LANGUAGE plpgsql AS
$$ BEGIN RETURN 4; END;$$;
CREATE FUNCTION
(wait)
-- Session 1 (t5)
postgres=*# END;
COMMIT
at this point Sessions 2, 3, and 4 were released with: CREATE FUNCTION
-- Session 1 (t6)
postgres=# \sf f1
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.f1()
RETURNS integer
LANGUAGE plpgsql
AS $function$ BEGIN RETURN 4; END;$function$
So... it no longer shows the error message:
ERROR: tuple concurrently updated
I did the same for ALTER FUNCTION but I was unable to reproduce the
error your reported. Could you provide your script?
Best regards, Jim
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-05-22 02:25 jian he <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2 siblings, 2 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: jian he @ 2025-05-22 02:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 7:22 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 20:00:57 +0900
> Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I found that multiple sessions concurrently execute CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
> > for a same function, the error "tuple concurrently updated" is raised. This is
> > an internal error output by elog, also the message is not user-friendly.
> >
> > I've attached a patch to prevent this internal error by locking an exclusive
> > lock before the command and get the read tuple after acquiring the lock.
> > Also, if the function has been removed during the lock waiting, the new entry
> > is created.
>
> I also found the same error is raised when concurrent ALTER FUNCTION commands are
> executed. I've added a patch to fix this in the similar way.
>
hi.
+ /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
+ LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
+ * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
+ * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
+ * of function definition getting changed.
+ */
+ oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
+ PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
+ PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
+ ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
we already called LockDatabaseObject, concurrent DDL can
not do DROP FUNCTION or ALTER FUNCTION.
so no need to call SearchSysCacheCopy3 again?
@@ -553,11 +575,13 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
replaces[Anum_pg_proc_proowner - 1] = false;
replaces[Anum_pg_proc_proacl - 1] = false;
+
+
/* Okay, do it... */
no need to add these two new lines.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-05-23 02:37 jian he <[email protected]>
parent: jian he <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: jian he @ 2025-05-23 02:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 10:25 AM jian he <[email protected]> wrote:
>
hi.
earlier, i didn't check patch 0002.
i think in AlterFunction add
/* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, funcOid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
right after
funcOid = LookupFuncWithArgs(stmt->objtype, stmt->func, false);
should be fine.
attached are some simple isolation tests for
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION, ALTER FUNCTION, DROP FUNCTION.
Attachments:
[text/x-patch] v1-0001-isolation-tests-for-concurrent-change-FUNCTION-definition.patch (3.8K, ../../CACJufxECujbwxdrQ8v3QzQWOaj-KpkDCrmA=NDURH5j87=KdQg@mail.gmail.com/2-v1-0001-isolation-tests-for-concurrent-change-FUNCTION-definition.patch)
download | inline diff:
From 040c5f739dbd4e5640ba40ae7c30b86d312bd004 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: jian he <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 10:33:39 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/1] isolation tests for concurrent change FUNCTION
definition
discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
---
.../isolation/expected/change-function.out | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
src/test/isolation/isolation_schedule | 1 +
src/test/isolation/specs/change-function.spec | 29 ++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 69 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 src/test/isolation/expected/change-function.out
create mode 100644 src/test/isolation/specs/change-function.spec
diff --git a/src/test/isolation/expected/change-function.out b/src/test/isolation/expected/change-function.out
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..812346f2fc1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/test/isolation/expected/change-function.out
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+unused step name: r1
+Parsed test spec with 2 sessions
+
+starting permutation: b1 b2 create_f1 alter_f s1 c1 r2
+step b1: BEGIN;
+step b2: BEGIN;
+step create_f1: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f1() RETURNS INT LANGUAGE sql AS $$ SELECT 2;$$;
+step alter_f: ALTER FUNCTION f1() COST 71; <waiting ...>
+step s1: SELECT pg_get_functiondef(oid) FROM pg_proc pp WHERE proname = 'f1';
+pg_get_functiondef
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.f1()
+ RETURNS integer
+ LANGUAGE sql
+AS $function$ SELECT 2;$function$
+
+(1 row)
+
+step c1: COMMIT;
+step alter_f: <... completed>
+step r2: ROLLBACK;
+
+starting permutation: b1 b2 drop_f create_f1 c2 c1
+step b1: BEGIN;
+step b2: BEGIN;
+step drop_f: DROP FUNCTION f1;
+step create_f1: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f1() RETURNS INT LANGUAGE sql AS $$ SELECT 2;$$; <waiting ...>
+step c2: COMMIT;
+step create_f1: <... completed>
+step c1: COMMIT;
+
+starting permutation: b1 b2 create_f2 create_f1 c2 c1
+step b1: BEGIN;
+step b2: BEGIN;
+step create_f2: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f1() RETURNS INT LANGUAGE sql AS $$ SELECT 3;$$;
+step create_f1: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f1() RETURNS INT LANGUAGE sql AS $$ SELECT 2;$$; <waiting ...>
+step c2: COMMIT;
+step create_f1: <... completed>
+step c1: COMMIT;
diff --git a/src/test/isolation/isolation_schedule b/src/test/isolation/isolation_schedule
index e3c669a29c7..99e3ce780a7 100644
--- a/src/test/isolation/isolation_schedule
+++ b/src/test/isolation/isolation_schedule
@@ -116,3 +116,4 @@ test: serializable-parallel-2
test: serializable-parallel-3
test: matview-write-skew
test: lock-nowait
+test: change-function
diff --git a/src/test/isolation/specs/change-function.spec b/src/test/isolation/specs/change-function.spec
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..987e1ee7cf1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/test/isolation/specs/change-function.spec
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+setup
+{
+ CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f1() RETURNS INT LANGUAGE sql AS $$ SELECT 1;$$;
+}
+
+teardown
+{
+ DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS f1;
+}
+
+session "s1"
+step b1 { BEGIN;}
+step create_f1 { CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f1() RETURNS INT LANGUAGE sql AS $$ SELECT 2;$$; }
+step c1 { COMMIT; }
+step s1 { SELECT pg_get_functiondef(oid) FROM pg_proc pp WHERE proname = 'f1'; }
+step r1 { ROLLBACK; }
+
+session "s2"
+step b2 { BEGIN;}
+step alter_f { ALTER FUNCTION f1() COST 71; }
+step create_f2 { CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f1() RETURNS INT LANGUAGE sql AS $$ SELECT 3;$$; }
+step drop_f { DROP FUNCTION f1; }
+step c2 { COMMIT; }
+step r2 { ROLLBACK; }
+
+# Basic effects
+permutation b1 b2 create_f1 alter_f s1 c1 r2
+permutation b1 b2 drop_f create_f1 c2 c1
+permutation b1 b2 create_f2 create_f1 c2 c1
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-05-26 16:39 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Jim Jones <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-05-26 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jim Jones <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 20 May 2025 17:30:35 +0200
Jim Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just briefly tested this patch and it seems to work as expected for
> CREATE OF REPLACE FUNCTION:
Thank you for reviewing the patch!
> I did the same for ALTER FUNCTION but I was unable to reproduce the
> error your reported. Could you provide your script?
I can see the error when two concurrent transactions issue
"alter function f() immutable".
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-05-26 17:35 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: jian he <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-05-26 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jian he <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers
Hi,
On Thu, 22 May 2025 10:25:58 +0800
jian he <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for looking into it.
> + /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
> + LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
> +
> + /*
> + * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
> + * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
> + * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
> + * of function definition getting changed.
> + */
> + oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
> + PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
> + PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
> + ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
>
> we already called LockDatabaseObject, concurrent DDL can
> not do DROP FUNCTION or ALTER FUNCTION.
> so no need to call SearchSysCacheCopy3 again?
The function may be dropped *before* we call LockDatabaseObject.
SearchSysCacheCopy3 is called for check this.
Plese see AlterPublication() as a similar code example.
>
> @@ -553,11 +575,13 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName,
> replaces[Anum_pg_proc_proowner - 1] = false;
> replaces[Anum_pg_proc_proacl - 1] = false;
>
> +
> +
> /* Okay, do it... */
> no need to add these two new lines.
I'll remove the lines. Thanks.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-05-26 18:17 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: jian he <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-05-26 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jian he <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 23 May 2025 10:37:42 +0800
jian he <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 10:25 AM jian he <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> hi.
> earlier, i didn't check patch 0002.
>
> i think in AlterFunction add
> /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
> LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, funcOid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
>
> right after
> funcOid = LookupFuncWithArgs(stmt->objtype, stmt->func, false);
>
> should be fine.
Thank you. That makes sense because we can reduce redundant call of SearchSysCacheCopy1
and HeapTupleIsValid. I've attached a updated patch.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-05-27 02:03 jian he <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: jian he @ 2025-05-27 02:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 1:35 AM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > + /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
> > + LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
> > + * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
> > + * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
> > + * of function definition getting changed.
> > + */
> > + oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
> > + PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
> > + PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
> > + ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
> >
> > we already called LockDatabaseObject, concurrent DDL can
> > not do DROP FUNCTION or ALTER FUNCTION.
> > so no need to call SearchSysCacheCopy3 again?
>
> The function may be dropped *before* we call LockDatabaseObject.
> SearchSysCacheCopy3 is called for check this.
> Plese see AlterPublication() as a similar code example.
>
I am wondering, can we do it the following way for v2-0001?
/* Check for pre-existing definition */
oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
{
/* There is one; okay to replace it? */
Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
if (!replace)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_FUNCTION),
errmsg("function \"%s\" already exists with same
argument types",
procedureName)));
/*
* It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
* concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
* existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
* of function definition getting changed.
*/
if (!ConditionalLockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId,
oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock))
oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
}
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-05-27 03:30 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: jian he <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-05-27 03:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jian he <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 27 May 2025 10:03:58 +0800
jian he <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 1:35 AM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > + /* Lock the function so nobody else can do anything with it. */
> > > + LockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId, oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock);
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
> > > + * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
> > > + * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
> > > + * of function definition getting changed.
> > > + */
> > > + oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
> > > + PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
> > > + PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
> > > + ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
> > >
> > > we already called LockDatabaseObject, concurrent DDL can
> > > not do DROP FUNCTION or ALTER FUNCTION.
> > > so no need to call SearchSysCacheCopy3 again?
> >
> > The function may be dropped *before* we call LockDatabaseObject.
> > SearchSysCacheCopy3 is called for check this.
> > Plese see AlterPublication() as a similar code example.
> >
>
> I am wondering, can we do it the following way for v2-0001?
>
>
> /* Check for pre-existing definition */
> oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
> PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
> PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
> ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
> if (HeapTupleIsValid(oldtup))
> {
> /* There is one; okay to replace it? */
> Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
> if (!replace)
> ereport(ERROR,
> (errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_FUNCTION),
> errmsg("function \"%s\" already exists with same
> argument types",
> procedureName)));
> /*
> * It is possible that by the time we acquire the lock on function,
> * concurrent DDL has removed it. We can test this by checking the
> * existence of function. We get the tuple again to avoid the risk
> * of function definition getting changed.
> */
> if (!ConditionalLockDatabaseObject(ProcedureRelationId,
> oldproc->oid, 0, AccessExclusiveLock))
> oldtup = SearchSysCacheCopy3(PROCNAMEARGSNSP,
> PointerGetDatum(procedureName),
> PointerGetDatum(parameterTypes),
> ObjectIdGetDatum(procNamespace));
> }
No. This cannot prevent the error "ERROR: tuple concurrently updated"
because it doesn't wait for end of the concurrently running session
if the lock cannot be acquired.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-05-27 06:00 Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Lakhin @ 2025-05-27 06:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers; jian he <[email protected]>
Hello Yugo,
31.03.2025 14:22, Yugo Nagata wrote:
>> I found that multiple sessions concurrently execute CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
>> for a same function, the error "tuple concurrently updated" is raised. This is
>> an internal error output by elog, also the message is not user-friendly.
> I also found the same error is raised when concurrent ALTER FUNCTION commands are
> executed. I've added a patch to fix this in the similar way.
FWIW, the same error is raised also with concurrent GRANT/REVOKE on a
database:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18dcfb7f-5deb-4487-ae22-a2c16839519a%40gmail.com
Maybe you would also find relevant this thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ZiYjn0eVc7pxVY45%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.intern...
Best regards,
Alexander Lakhin
Neon (https://neon.tech)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-05-27 06:33 Jim Jones <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Jim Jones @ 2025-05-27 06:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers
Hi Yugo
On 26.05.25 18:39, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> I can see the error when two concurrent transactions issue
> "alter function f() immutable".
I might have missed something in my last tests... I could now reproduce
the behaviour you mentioned.
I've tested v2 and it works as described. CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION and
ALTER TABLE no longer raise an error after the lock by the concurrent
transaction was freed.
One quick question in v2-002:
tup = SearchSysCacheCopy1(PROCOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(funcOid));
- if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tup)) /* should not happen */
- elog(ERROR, "cache lookup failed for function %u", funcOid);
+ if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tup))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_OBJECT),
+ errmsg("function \"%s\" does not exist",
+ NameListToString(stmt->func->objname)));
Is it really ok to change this error message here? Did the addition of
LockDatabaseObject change the semantics of the previous message? Other
similar parts of the code still report "cache lookup failed for function
x". I don't have a strong opinion here, but perhaps we should keep these
messages consistent at least throughout the file?
Thanks!
Best, Jim
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-05-27 08:52 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Jim Jones <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-05-27 08:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jim Jones <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 27 May 2025 08:33:42 +0200
Jim Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Yugo
>
> On 26.05.25 18:39, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > I can see the error when two concurrent transactions issue
> > "alter function f() immutable".
>
>
> I might have missed something in my last tests... I could now reproduce
> the behaviour you mentioned.
>
> I've tested v2 and it works as described. CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION and
> ALTER TABLE no longer raise an error after the lock by the concurrent
> transaction was freed.
>
> One quick question in v2-002:
>
> tup = SearchSysCacheCopy1(PROCOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(funcOid));
> - if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tup)) /* should not happen */
> - elog(ERROR, "cache lookup failed for function %u", funcOid);
> + if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tup))
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_OBJECT),
> + errmsg("function \"%s\" does not exist",
> + NameListToString(stmt->func->objname)));
>
>
> Is it really ok to change this error message here? Did the addition of
> LockDatabaseObject change the semantics of the previous message?
Yes. AcceptInvalidationMessages() is called in LockDatabaseObject() after wait,
and this enables the detection of object deletion during the wait.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-06-03 08:39 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-06-03 08:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers; jian he <[email protected]>
On Tue, 27 May 2025 09:00:01 +0300
Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Yugo,
>
> 31.03.2025 14:22, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> >> I found that multiple sessions concurrently execute CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
> >> for a same function, the error "tuple concurrently updated" is raised. This is
> >> an internal error output by elog, also the message is not user-friendly.
> > I also found the same error is raised when concurrent ALTER FUNCTION commands are
> > executed. I've added a patch to fix this in the similar way.
>
> FWIW, the same error is raised also with concurrent GRANT/REVOKE on a
> database:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18dcfb7f-5deb-4487-ae22-a2c16839519a%40gmail.com
>
> Maybe you would also find relevant this thread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ZiYjn0eVc7pxVY45%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.intern...
Thank you for sharing the information.
I know there are other scenarios where the same is raises and I agree that
it would be better to consider a more global solution instead of addressing
each of them. However, I am not sure that improving the error message for
each case doesn't not make sense.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-06-05 07:26 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-06-05 07:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-hackers; +Cc: Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 17:39:50 +0900
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2025 09:00:01 +0300
> Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]> wrote:
> I know there are other scenarios where the same is raises and I agree that
> it would be better to consider a more global solution instead of addressing
> each of them. However, I am not sure that improving the error message for
> each case doesn't not make sense.
To address the remaining cases where DDL commands fail with the internal
error "ERROR: tuple concurrently updated" due to insufficient locking,
I would like to propose improving the error reporting to produce a more
appropriate and user-facing error message. This should make it easier for
users to understand the cause of the failure.
Patch 0003 improves the error message shown when concurrent updates to a
system catalog tuple occur, producing output like:
ERROR: operation failed due to a concurrent command
DETAIL: Another command modified the same object in a concurrent session.
Patches 0001 and 0002 are unchanged from v2, except for updated commit messages.
I believe these patches are still useful, as they allow the operation to complete
successfully after waiting, or to behave appropriately when the target function
is dropped by another session during the wait.
Best regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-06-05 10:20 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-06-05 10:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-hackers; +Cc: Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 16:26:08 +0900
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 17:39:50 +0900
> Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 May 2025 09:00:01 +0300
> > Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I know there are other scenarios where the same is raises and I agree that
> > it would be better to consider a more global solution instead of addressing
> > each of them. However, I am not sure that improving the error message for
> > each case doesn't not make sense.
>
> To address the remaining cases where DDL commands fail with the internal
> error "ERROR: tuple concurrently updated" due to insufficient locking,
> I would like to propose improving the error reporting to produce a more
> appropriate and user-facing error message. This should make it easier for
> users to understand the cause of the failure.
>
> Patch 0003 improves the error message shown when concurrent updates to a
> system catalog tuple occur, producing output like:
>
> ERROR: operation failed due to a concurrent command
> DETAIL: Another command modified the same object in a concurrent session.
>
> Patches 0001 and 0002 are unchanged from v2, except for updated commit messages.
> I believe these patches are still useful, as they allow the operation to complete
> successfully after waiting, or to behave appropriately when the target function
> is dropped by another session during the wait.
I found that the error "tuple concurrently updated" was expected as the results
of injection_points test , so I've fixed it so that the new message is expected
instead.
I've attached updated patches.
Best regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-06-27 11:53 Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Daniil Davydov @ 2025-06-27 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers; Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 5:21 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've attached updated patches.
>
I have some comments on v4-0001 patch :
1)
heap_freetuple should be called for every tuple that we get from
SearchSysCacheCopy3.
But if tuple is valid after the first SearchSysCacheCopy3, we
overwrite the old pointer (by the second SearchSysCacheCopy3 call) and
forget to free it.
I suggest adding heap_freetuple call before the second SearchSysCacheCopy3 call.
2)
+ Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
+ Datum proargnames;
+ bool isnull;
+ const char *dropcmd;
Strange alignment. I guess you should keep the same alignment as in
deleted declarations.
3)
This patch fixes postgres behavior if I first create a function and
then try to CREATE OR REPLACE it in concurrent transactions.
But if the function doesn't exist and I try to call CREATE OR REPLACE
in concurrent transactions, I will get an error.
I wrote about it in this thread [1] and Tom Lane said that this
behavior is kinda expected.
Just in case, I decided to mention it here anyway - perhaps you will
have other thoughts on this matter.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAJDiXghv2JF5zbLyyybokWKM%2B-GYsTG%2Bhw7xseLNgJOJwf0%2B8w...
--
Best regards,
Daniil Davydov
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-06-30 08:47 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-06-30 08:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers; Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 18:53:02 +0700
Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 5:21 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I've attached updated patches.
> >
>
> I have some comments on v4-0001 patch :
Thank you for your comments!
> 1)
> heap_freetuple should be called for every tuple that we get from
> SearchSysCacheCopy3.
> But if tuple is valid after the first SearchSysCacheCopy3, we
> overwrite the old pointer (by the second SearchSysCacheCopy3 call) and
> forget to free it.
> I suggest adding heap_freetuple call before the second SearchSysCacheCopy3 call.
Good catches. Fixed.
> 2)
> + Form_pg_proc oldproc = (Form_pg_proc) GETSTRUCT(oldtup);
> + Datum proargnames;
> + bool isnull;
> + const char *dropcmd;
> Strange alignment. I guess you should keep the same alignment as in
> deleted declarations.
Fixed.
I've attached patches including these fixes.
> 3)
> This patch fixes postgres behavior if I first create a function and
> then try to CREATE OR REPLACE it in concurrent transactions.
> But if the function doesn't exist and I try to call CREATE OR REPLACE
> in concurrent transactions, I will get an error.
> I wrote about it in this thread [1] and Tom Lane said that this
> behavior is kinda expected.
> Just in case, I decided to mention it here anyway - perhaps you will
> have other thoughts on this matter.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAJDiXghv2JF5zbLyyybokWKM%2B-GYsTG%2Bhw7xseLNgJOJwf0%2B8w...
I agree with Tom Lane that the behavior is expected, although it would be better
if the error message were more user-friendly. We could improve it by checking the
unique constraint before calling index_insert in CatalogIndexInsert.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-06-30 11:32 Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Daniil Davydov @ 2025-06-30 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers; Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 3:47 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 18:53:02 +0700
> Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This patch fixes postgres behavior if I first create a function and
> > then try to CREATE OR REPLACE it in concurrent transactions.
> > But if the function doesn't exist and I try to call CREATE OR REPLACE
> > in concurrent transactions, I will get an error.
> > I wrote about it in this thread [1] and Tom Lane said that this
> > behavior is kinda expected.
> > Just in case, I decided to mention it here anyway - perhaps you will
> > have other thoughts on this matter.
> >
> > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAJDiXghv2JF5zbLyyybokWKM%2B-GYsTG%2Bhw7xseLNgJOJwf0%2B8w...
>
> I agree with Tom Lane that the behavior is expected, although it would be better
> if the error message were more user-friendly. We could improve it by checking the
> unique constraint before calling index_insert in CatalogIndexInsert.
>
As far as I understand, unique constraint checking is specific for
each index access method.
Thus, to implement the proposed idea, you will have to create a
separate callback for check_unique function.
It doesn't seem like a very neat solution, but there aren't many other
options left.
I would suggest intercepting the error (via PG_CATCH), and if it has
the ERRCODE_UNIQUE_VIOLATION code, change the error message (more
precisely, throw another error with the desired message).
If we caught an error during the CatalogTupleInsert call, we can be
sure that the problem is in concurrent execution, because before the
insertion, we checked that such a tuple does not exist.
What do you think? And in general, are you going to fix this behavior
within this thread?
P.S.
Thank you for updating the patch.
--
Best regards,
Daniil Davydov
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-07-01 10:47 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-07-01 10:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers; Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:32:47 +0700
Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 3:47 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 18:53:02 +0700
> > Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > This patch fixes postgres behavior if I first create a function and
> > > then try to CREATE OR REPLACE it in concurrent transactions.
> > > But if the function doesn't exist and I try to call CREATE OR REPLACE
> > > in concurrent transactions, I will get an error.
> > > I wrote about it in this thread [1] and Tom Lane said that this
> > > behavior is kinda expected.
> > > Just in case, I decided to mention it here anyway - perhaps you will
> > > have other thoughts on this matter.
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAJDiXghv2JF5zbLyyybokWKM%2B-GYsTG%2Bhw7xseLNgJOJwf0%2B8w...
> >
> > I agree with Tom Lane that the behavior is expected, although it would be better
> > if the error message were more user-friendly. We could improve it by checking the
> > unique constraint before calling index_insert in CatalogIndexInsert.
> >
>
> As far as I understand, unique constraint checking is specific for
> each index access method.
> Thus, to implement the proposed idea, you will have to create a
> separate callback for check_unique function.
> It doesn't seem like a very neat solution, but there aren't many other
> options left.
I believe check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint() can be used independently of
a specific index access method.
> I would suggest intercepting the error (via PG_CATCH), and if it has
> the ERRCODE_UNIQUE_VIOLATION code, change the error message (more
> precisely, throw another error with the desired message).
> If we caught an error during the CatalogTupleInsert call, we can be
> sure that the problem is in concurrent execution, because before the
> insertion, we checked that such a tuple does not exist.
>
> What do you think? And in general, are you going to fix this behavior
> within this thread?
Initially, I wasn't planning to do so, but I gave it a try and wrote a
patch to fix the issue based on my idea.
I've attached the patch as 0004. Other patches 0001-0003 are not changed.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-07-01 11:56 Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Daniil Davydov @ 2025-07-01 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers; Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 5:47 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:32:47 +0700
> Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 3:47 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with Tom Lane that the behavior is expected, although it would be better
> > > if the error message were more user-friendly. We could improve it by checking the
> > > unique constraint before calling index_insert in CatalogIndexInsert.
> > >
> >
> > As far as I understand, unique constraint checking is specific for
> > each index access method.
> > Thus, to implement the proposed idea, you will have to create a
> > separate callback for check_unique function.
> > It doesn't seem like a very neat solution, but there aren't many other
> > options left.
>
> I believe check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint() can be used independently of
> a specific index access method.
>
> > I would suggest intercepting the error (via PG_CATCH), and if it has
> > the ERRCODE_UNIQUE_VIOLATION code, change the error message (more
> > precisely, throw another error with the desired message).
> > If we caught an error during the CatalogTupleInsert call, we can be
> > sure that the problem is in concurrent execution, because before the
> > insertion, we checked that such a tuple does not exist.
> >
> > What do you think? And in general, are you going to fix this behavior
> > within this thread?
>
> Initially, I wasn't planning to do so, but I gave it a try and wrote a
> patch to fix the issue based on my idea.
Thanks for the patch! Some comments on it :
1)
I found two typos :
+ if (HeapTupleIsHeapOenly(heapTuple) && !onlySummarized)
and
+ sartisfied = check_unique_constraint(heapRelation,
2)
CatalogIndexInsert is kinda "popular" function. It can be called in
different situations, not in all of which a violation of unique
constraint means an error due to competitiveness.
For example, with this patch such a query : "CREATE TYPE mood AS ENUM
('happy', 'sad', 'happy');"
Will throw this error : "operation failed due to a concurrent command"
Of course, it isn't true.
That is why I suggested handling unique violations exactly inside
ProcedureCreate - the only place where we can be sure about reasons of
error.
--
Best regards,
Daniil Davydov
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-07-03 14:18 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-07-03 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers; Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:56:11 +0700
Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 5:47 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:32:47 +0700
> > Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 3:47 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Tom Lane that the behavior is expected, although it would be better
> > > > if the error message were more user-friendly. We could improve it by checking the
> > > > unique constraint before calling index_insert in CatalogIndexInsert.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As far as I understand, unique constraint checking is specific for
> > > each index access method.
> > > Thus, to implement the proposed idea, you will have to create a
> > > separate callback for check_unique function.
> > > It doesn't seem like a very neat solution, but there aren't many other
> > > options left.
> >
> > I believe check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint() can be used independently of
> > a specific index access method.
> >
> > > I would suggest intercepting the error (via PG_CATCH), and if it has
> > > the ERRCODE_UNIQUE_VIOLATION code, change the error message (more
> > > precisely, throw another error with the desired message).
> > > If we caught an error during the CatalogTupleInsert call, we can be
> > > sure that the problem is in concurrent execution, because before the
> > > insertion, we checked that such a tuple does not exist.
> > >
> > > What do you think? And in general, are you going to fix this behavior
> > > within this thread?
> >
> > Initially, I wasn't planning to do so, but I gave it a try and wrote a
> > patch to fix the issue based on my idea.
>
> Thanks for the patch! Some comments on it :
> 1)
> I found two typos :
> + if (HeapTupleIsHeapOenly(heapTuple) && !onlySummarized)
> and
> + sartisfied = check_unique_constraint(heapRelation,
Thank you for pointing out them. Fixed.
> 2)
> CatalogIndexInsert is kinda "popular" function. It can be called in
> different situations, not in all of which a violation of unique
> constraint means an error due to competitiveness.
>
> For example, with this patch such a query : "CREATE TYPE mood AS ENUM
> ('happy', 'sad', 'happy');"
> Will throw this error : "operation failed due to a concurrent command"
> Of course, it isn't true
You're right — this error is not caused by a concurrent command.
However, I believe the error message in cases like creating an ENUM type with
duplicate labels could be improved to explain the issue more clearly, rather
than just reporting it as a unique constraint violation.
In any case, a unique constraint violation in a system catalog is not necessarily
due to concurrent DDL. Therefore, the error message shouldn't suggest that as the
only cause. Instead, it should clearly report the constraint violation as the primary
issue, and mention concurrent DDL as just one possible explanation in HINT.
I've updated the patch accordingly to reflect this direction in the error message.
ERROR: operation failed due to duplicate key object
DETAIL: Key (proname, proargtypes, pronamespace)=(fnc, , 2200) already exists in unique index pg_proc_proname_args_nsp_index.
HINT: Another command might have created a object with the same key in a concurrent session.
However, as a result, the message ends up being similar to the current one raised
by the btree code, so the overall improvement in user-friendliness might be limited.
> That is why I suggested handling unique violations exactly inside
> ProcedureCreate - the only place where we can be sure about reasons of
> error.
If we were to fix the error message outside of CatalogIndexInsert, we would need to
modify CatalogTupleInsert, CatalogTupleUpdate, and related functions to allow them to
report the failure appropriately.
You suggested using PG_TRY/PG_CATCH, but these do not suppress the error message from
the btree code, so this approach seems not to fully address the issue.
Moreover, the places affected are not limited to ProcedureCreate, for example,
concurrent CREATE TABLE commands can also lead to the same situation, and possibly
other commands as well. Therefore, I think it would be sufficient if the
improved message in CatalogIndexInsert makes sense on its own.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-07-03 15:06 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-07-03 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers; Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 23:18:12 +0900
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:56:11 +0700
> Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > For example, with this patch such a query : "CREATE TYPE mood AS ENUM
> > ('happy', 'sad', 'happy');"
> > Will throw this error : "operation failed due to a concurrent command"
> > Of course, it isn't true
>
> You're right ― this error is not caused by a concurrent command.
> However, I believe the error message in cases like creating an ENUM type with
> duplicate labels could be improved to explain the issue more clearly, rather
> than just reporting it as a unique constraint violation.
I have submitted a patch addressing this in a separate thread [1].
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20250704000402.37e605ab0c59c300965a17ee%40sraoss.co.jp
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-07-04 03:48 Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Daniil Davydov @ 2025-07-04 03:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers; Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:18 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:56:11 +0700
> Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > CatalogIndexInsert is kinda "popular" function. It can be called in
> > different situations, not in all of which a violation of unique
> > constraint means an error due to competitiveness.
> >
> > For example, with this patch such a query : "CREATE TYPE mood AS ENUM
> > ('happy', 'sad', 'happy');"
> > Will throw this error : "operation failed due to a concurrent command"
> > Of course, it isn't true
>
> You're right — this error is not caused by a concurrent command.
> However, I believe the error message in cases like creating an ENUM type with
> duplicate labels could be improved to explain the issue more clearly, rather
> than just reporting it as a unique constraint violation.
>
> In any case, a unique constraint violation in a system catalog is not necessarily
> due to concurrent DDL. Therefore, the error message shouldn't suggest that as the
> only cause. Instead, it should clearly report the constraint violation as the primary
> issue, and mention concurrent DDL as just one possible explanation in HINT.
>
> I've updated the patch accordingly to reflect this direction in the error message.
>
> ERROR: operation failed due to duplicate key object
> DETAIL: Key (proname, proargtypes, pronamespace)=(fnc, , 2200) already exists in unique index pg_proc_proname_args_nsp_index.
> HINT: Another command might have created a object with the same key in a concurrent session.
>
> However, as a result, the message ends up being similar to the current one raised
> by the btree code, so the overall improvement in user-friendliness might be limited.
>
Thanks for updating the patch!
+1 for adding such a hint for this error.
> > That is why I suggested handling unique violations exactly inside
> > ProcedureCreate - the only place where we can be sure about reasons of
> > error.
>
> If we were to fix the error message outside of CatalogIndexInsert, we would need to
> modify CatalogTupleInsert, CatalogTupleUpdate, and related functions to allow them to
> report the failure appropriately.
>
> You suggested using PG_TRY/PG_CATCH, but these do not suppress the error message from
> the btree code, so this approach seems not to fully address the issue.
>
> Moreover, the places affected are not limited to ProcedureCreate, for example,
> concurrent CREATE TABLE commands can also lead to the same situation, and possibly
> other commands as well.
Actually, we can suppress errors from btree (by flushing error context
and creating another), but it doesn't look like the best design
decision.
It was an idea for one concrete error fix. Anyway,I like the
correction you suggested better.
--
Best regards,
Daniil Davydov
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-07-04 05:58 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-07-04 05:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers; Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 10:48:26 +0700
Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:18 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:56:11 +0700
> > Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > CatalogIndexInsert is kinda "popular" function. It can be called in
> > > different situations, not in all of which a violation of unique
> > > constraint means an error due to competitiveness.
> > >
> > > For example, with this patch such a query : "CREATE TYPE mood AS ENUM
> > > ('happy', 'sad', 'happy');"
> > > Will throw this error : "operation failed due to a concurrent command"
> > > Of course, it isn't true
> >
> > You're right — this error is not caused by a concurrent command.
> > However, I believe the error message in cases like creating an ENUM type with
> > duplicate labels could be improved to explain the issue more clearly, rather
> > than just reporting it as a unique constraint violation.
> >
> > In any case, a unique constraint violation in a system catalog is not necessarily
> > due to concurrent DDL. Therefore, the error message shouldn't suggest that as the
> > only cause. Instead, it should clearly report the constraint violation as the primary
> > issue, and mention concurrent DDL as just one possible explanation in HINT.
> >
> > I've updated the patch accordingly to reflect this direction in the error message.
> >
> > ERROR: operation failed due to duplicate key object
> > DETAIL: Key (proname, proargtypes, pronamespace)=(fnc, , 2200) already exists in unique index pg_proc_proname_args_nsp_index.
> > HINT: Another command might have created a object with the same key in a concurrent session.
> >
> > However, as a result, the message ends up being similar to the current one raised
> > by the btree code, so the overall improvement in user-friendliness might be limited.
> >
>
> Thanks for updating the patch!
> +1 for adding such a hint for this error.
>
> > > That is why I suggested handling unique violations exactly inside
> > > ProcedureCreate - the only place where we can be sure about reasons of
> > > error.
> >
> > If we were to fix the error message outside of CatalogIndexInsert, we would need to
> > modify CatalogTupleInsert, CatalogTupleUpdate, and related functions to allow them to
> > report the failure appropriately.
> >
> > You suggested using PG_TRY/PG_CATCH, but these do not suppress the error message from
> > the btree code, so this approach seems not to fully address the issue.
> >
> > Moreover, the places affected are not limited to ProcedureCreate, for example,
> > concurrent CREATE TABLE commands can also lead to the same situation, and possibly
> > other commands as well.
>
> Actually, we can suppress errors from btree (by flushing error context
> and creating another),
Right. That was my misunderstanding.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-07-17 05:09 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-07-17 05:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers; Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:58:05 +0900
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 10:48:26 +0700
> Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:18 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:56:11 +0700
> > > Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > CatalogIndexInsert is kinda "popular" function. It can be called in
> > > > different situations, not in all of which a violation of unique
> > > > constraint means an error due to competitiveness.
> > > >
> > > > For example, with this patch such a query : "CREATE TYPE mood AS ENUM
> > > > ('happy', 'sad', 'happy');"
> > > > Will throw this error : "operation failed due to a concurrent command"
> > > > Of course, it isn't true
> > >
> > > You're right — this error is not caused by a concurrent command.
> > > However, I believe the error message in cases like creating an ENUM type with
> > > duplicate labels could be improved to explain the issue more clearly, rather
> > > than just reporting it as a unique constraint violation.
> > >
> > > In any case, a unique constraint violation in a system catalog is not necessarily
> > > due to concurrent DDL. Therefore, the error message shouldn't suggest that as the
> > > only cause. Instead, it should clearly report the constraint violation as the primary
> > > issue, and mention concurrent DDL as just one possible explanation in HINT.
> > >
> > > I've updated the patch accordingly to reflect this direction in the error message.
> > >
> > > ERROR: operation failed due to duplicate key object
> > > DETAIL: Key (proname, proargtypes, pronamespace)=(fnc, , 2200) already exists in unique index pg_proc_proname_args_nsp_index.
> > > HINT: Another command might have created a object with the same key in a concurrent session.
> > >
> > > However, as a result, the message ends up being similar to the current one raised
> > > by the btree code, so the overall improvement in user-friendliness might be limited.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for updating the patch!
> > +1 for adding such a hint for this error.
I've attached updated patches since I found some test failed.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-08-20 08:01 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-08-20 08:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers; Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 14:09:14 +0900
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:58:05 +0900
> Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 10:48:26 +0700
> > Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:18 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:56:11 +0700
> > > > Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > CatalogIndexInsert is kinda "popular" function. It can be called in
> > > > > different situations, not in all of which a violation of unique
> > > > > constraint means an error due to competitiveness.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, with this patch such a query : "CREATE TYPE mood AS ENUM
> > > > > ('happy', 'sad', 'happy');"
> > > > > Will throw this error : "operation failed due to a concurrent command"
> > > > > Of course, it isn't true
> > > >
> > > > You're right — this error is not caused by a concurrent command.
> > > > However, I believe the error message in cases like creating an ENUM type with
> > > > duplicate labels could be improved to explain the issue more clearly, rather
> > > > than just reporting it as a unique constraint violation.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, a unique constraint violation in a system catalog is not necessarily
> > > > due to concurrent DDL. Therefore, the error message shouldn't suggest that as the
> > > > only cause. Instead, it should clearly report the constraint violation as the primary
> > > > issue, and mention concurrent DDL as just one possible explanation in HINT.
> > > >
> > > > I've updated the patch accordingly to reflect this direction in the error message.
> > > >
> > > > ERROR: operation failed due to duplicate key object
> > > > DETAIL: Key (proname, proargtypes, pronamespace)=(fnc, , 2200) already exists in unique index pg_proc_proname_args_nsp_index.
> > > > HINT: Another command might have created a object with the same key in a concurrent session.
> > > >
> > > > However, as a result, the message ends up being similar to the current one raised
> > > > by the btree code, so the overall improvement in user-friendliness might be limited.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for updating the patch!
> > > +1 for adding such a hint for this error.
I've fixed the following cfbot failure:
SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free /tmp/cirrus-ci-build/src/backend/catalog/pg_proc.c:406 in ProcedureCreate
This was caused by accessing oldproc->oid after oldtup had already been freed.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-09-30 02:01 Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 41+ messages in thread
From: Yugo Nagata @ 2025-09-30 02:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers; Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 17:01:56 +0900
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 14:09:14 +0900
> Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:58:05 +0900
> > Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 10:48:26 +0700
> > > Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:18 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:56:11 +0700
> > > > > Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > CatalogIndexInsert is kinda "popular" function. It can be called in
> > > > > > different situations, not in all of which a violation of unique
> > > > > > constraint means an error due to competitiveness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example, with this patch such a query : "CREATE TYPE mood AS ENUM
> > > > > > ('happy', 'sad', 'happy');"
> > > > > > Will throw this error : "operation failed due to a concurrent command"
> > > > > > Of course, it isn't true
> > > > >
> > > > > You're right — this error is not caused by a concurrent command.
> > > > > However, I believe the error message in cases like creating an ENUM type with
> > > > > duplicate labels could be improved to explain the issue more clearly, rather
> > > > > than just reporting it as a unique constraint violation.
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, a unique constraint violation in a system catalog is not necessarily
> > > > > due to concurrent DDL. Therefore, the error message shouldn't suggest that as the
> > > > > only cause. Instead, it should clearly report the constraint violation as the primary
> > > > > issue, and mention concurrent DDL as just one possible explanation in HINT.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've updated the patch accordingly to reflect this direction in the error message.
> > > > >
> > > > > ERROR: operation failed due to duplicate key object
> > > > > DETAIL: Key (proname, proargtypes, pronamespace)=(fnc, , 2200) already exists in unique index pg_proc_proname_args_nsp_index.
> > > > > HINT: Another command might have created a object with the same key in a concurrent session.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, as a result, the message ends up being similar to the current one raised
> > > > > by the btree code, so the overall improvement in user-friendliness might be limited.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for updating the patch!
> > > > +1 for adding such a hint for this error.
I've attached rebase patches.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
* Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
@ 2025-10-01 13:30 Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
parent: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 41+ messages in thread
From: Daniil Davydov @ 2025-10-01 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers; Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>; jian he <[email protected]>
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 9:02 AM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've attached rebase patches.
>
It seems redundant to me that in CatalogIndexInsert we first check the
unique constraint, and then pass the UNIQUE_CHECK_YES parameter
to the index_insert function call below. As far as I understand, after
check_unique_constraint we can be sure that everything is okay with
inserted values. Am I missing something?
Also, why should we add "IsCatalogRelation(heapRelation)" check inside
the CatalogIndexInsert function? We know for sure that a given table is a
catalog relation.
BTW, what do you think about adding an isolation test for a concurrent
"CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION" command? This is one of the
'problems' we're struggling with, but I don't see this case being explicitly
tested anywhere.
All other changes look good to me.
--
Best regards,
Daniil Davydov
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 41+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-10-01 13:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-02-23 00:45 [PATCH 04/11] Add explain(MACHINE) to hide machine-dependent output.. Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
2025-03-31 09:46 [PATCH v2 1/2] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-03-31 09:46 [PATCH v6 1/4] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-03-31 09:46 [PATCH v4 1/3] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-03-31 09:46 [PATCH] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-03-31 09:46 [PATCH v7 1/4] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-03-31 09:46 [PATCH v10 1/4] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-03-31 09:46 [PATCH v5 1/3] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-03-31 09:46 [PATCH v9 1/4] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-03-31 09:46 [PATCH v8 1/4] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-03-31 09:46 [PATCH v3 1/3] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-03-31 09:46 [PATCH 1/2] Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-03-31 11:00 Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-03-31 11:22 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-05-20 15:30 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Jim Jones <[email protected]>
2025-05-26 16:39 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-05-27 06:33 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Jim Jones <[email protected]>
2025-05-27 08:52 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-05-22 02:25 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION jian he <[email protected]>
2025-05-23 02:37 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION jian he <[email protected]>
2025-05-26 18:17 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-05-26 17:35 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-05-27 02:03 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION jian he <[email protected]>
2025-05-27 03:30 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-05-27 06:00 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>
2025-06-03 08:39 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-06-05 07:26 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-06-05 10:20 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-06-27 11:53 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
2025-06-30 08:47 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-06-30 11:32 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
2025-07-01 10:47 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-07-01 11:56 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
2025-07-03 14:18 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-07-03 15:06 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-07-04 03:48 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
2025-07-04 05:58 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-07-17 05:09 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-08-20 08:01 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-09-30 02:01 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Yugo Nagata <[email protected]>
2025-10-01 13:30 ` Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION Daniil Davydov <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox