Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns

From: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns
Date: 2010-01-29 00:58:46
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
(2010/01/29 9:29), Robert Haas wrote:
> 2010/1/28 KaiGai Kohei<kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>> (2010/01/29 0:46), Robert Haas wrote:
>>> 2010/1/27 KaiGai Kohei<kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>>>> Hmm, indeed, this logic (V3/V5) is busted.
>>>> The idea of V4 patch can also handle this case correctly, although it
>>>> is lesser in performance.
>>>> I wonder whether it is really unacceptable cost in performance, or not.
>>>> Basically, I assume ALTER TABLE RENAME/TYPE is not frequent operations,
>>>> and I don't think this bugfix will damage to the reputation of PostgreSQL.
>>>> Where should we go on the next?
>>> Isn't the problem here just that the following comment is 100% wrong?
>>>                   /*
>>>                    * Unlike find_all_inheritors(), we need to walk on
>>> child relations
>>>                    * that have diamond inheritance tree, because this
>>> function has to
>>>                    * return correct expected inhecount to the caller.
>>>                    */
>>> It seems to me that the right solution here is to just add one more
>>> argument to find_all_inheritors(), something like List
>>> **expected_inh_count.
>>> Am I missing something?
>> The find_all_inheritors() does not walk on child relations more than
>> two times, even if a child has multiple parents inherited from common
>> origin, because list_concat_unique_oid() ignores the given OID if it
>> is already on the list. It means all the child relations under the
>> relation already walked on does not checked anywhere. (Of course,
>> this assumption is correct for the purpose of find_all_inheritors()
>> with minimum cost.)
>> What we want to do here is to compute the number of times a certain
>> child relation is inherited from a common origin; it shall be the
>> expected-inhcount. So, we need an arrangement to the logic.
>> For example, see the following diagram.
>>    T2
>>   /  \
>> T1    T4---T5
>>   \  /
>>    T3
>> If we call find_all_inheritors() with T1. The find_inheritance_children()
>> returns T2 and T3 for T1.
>> Then, it calls find_inheritance_children() for T2, and it returns T4.
>> Then, it calls find_inheritance_children() for T3, and it returns T4, but
>> it is already in the "rels_list", so list_concat_unique_oid() ignores it.
>> Then, it calls find_inheritance_children() for T4, and it returns T5.
>> In this example, we want the expected inhcount for T2 and T3 should be 1,
>> for T4 and T5 should be 2. However, it walks on T4 and T5 only once, so
>> they will have 1 incorrectly.
>> Even if we count up the ignored OID (T4), find_all_inheritors() does not
>> walk on T5, because it is already walked on obviously when T4 is ignored.
> I think the count for T5 should be 1, and I think that the count for
> T4 can easily be made to be 2 by coding the algorithm correctly.

Ahh, it is right. I was confused.

Is it possible to introduce the logic mathematical-strictly?
Now I'm considering whether the find_all_inheritors() logic is suitable
for any cases, or not.

What we want to compute here is:

    SELECT 't1'::regclass AS inhrelid
    SELECT c.inhrelid FROM pg_inherits c, r WHERE r.inhrelid = c.inhparent
  )	-- r is all the child relations inherited from 't1'
  SELECT inhrelid::regclass, count(*) FROM pg_inherits
    WHERE inhparent IN (SELECT inhrelid FROM r) GROUP BY inhrelid;

OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-01-29 02:59:22
Subject: Re: Pathological regexp match
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-01-29 00:31:17
Subject: Re: remove contrib/xml2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group