|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Cc:||Phil Currier <pcurrier(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||logical column ordering|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
So I've been updating my very old patch to allow logical and physical
column reordering. Here's a WIP first cut for examination. There are
plenty of rough edges here; most importantly there is no UI at all for
column reordering other than direct UPDATEs of pg_attribute, which most
likely falls afoul of cache invalidation problems. For now I'm focusing
on correct processing when columns are moved logically; I haven't yet
started to see how to move columns physically, but I think that part is
much more localized than the logical one.
Just as a reminder, this effort is an implementation of ideas that have
been discussed previously; in particular, see these threads:
To recap, this is based on the idea of having three numbers for each
attribute rather than a single attnum; the first of these is attnum (a
number that uniquely identifies an attribute since its inception and may
or may not have any relationship to its storage position and the place
it expands to through user interaction). The second is attphysnum,
which indicates where it is stored in the physical structure. The third
is attlognum, which indicates where it expands in "*", where must its
values be placed in COPY or VALUES lists, etc --- the logical position
as the user sees it.
The first thing where this matters is tuple descriptor expansion in
parse analysis; at this stage, things such as "*" (in "select *") are
turned into a target list, which must be sorted according to attlognum.
To achieve this I added a new routine to tupledescs,
TupleDescGetSortedAttrs() which computes a new Attribute array and
caches it in the TupleDesc for later uses; this array points to the
same elements in the normal attribute list but is order by attlognum.
Additionally there are a number of places that iterate on such target
lists and use the iterator as the attribute number; those were modified
to have a separate attribute number as attnum within the loop.
Another place that needs tweaking is heapam.c, which must construct a
physical tuple from Datum/nulls arrays (heap_form_tuple). In some cases
the input arrays are sorted in logical column order. I have opted to
add a flag that indicates whether the array is in logical order; if it
is the routines compute the correct physical order. (Actually as I
mentioned above I still haven't made any effort to make sure they work
in the case that attnum differs from attphysnum, but this should be
reasonably contained changes.)
The part where I stopped just before sending the current state is this
alvherre=# select * from quux where (a,c) in ( select a,c from quux );
select * from quux where (a,c) in ( select a,c from quux );
ERROR: failed to find unique expression in subplan tlist
I'm going to see about it while I get feedback on the rest of this patch; in
particular, extra test cases that fail to work when columns have been
moved around are welcome, so that I can add them to the regress test.
What I have now is the basics I'm building as I go along. The
regression tests show examples of some logical column renumbering (which
can be done after the table already contains some data) but none of
physical column renumbering (which can only be done when the table is
completely empty.) My hunch is that the sample foo, bar, baz, quux
tables should present plenty of opportunities to display brokenness in
the planner and executor.
PS: Phil Currier allegedly had a patch back in 2007-2008 that did this,
or something very similar ... though he never posted a single bit of it,
and then he vanished without a trace. If he's still available it would
be nice to see his WIP patch, even if outdated, as it might serve as
inspiration and let us know what other places need tweaking.
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Josh Berkus||2014-12-09 18:14:01||Re: On partitioning|
|Previous Message||Fabrízio de Royes Mello||2014-12-09 16:37:44||Re: Proposal : REINDEX SCHEMA|