Re: [BUG?] postgres_fdw incorrectly updates remote table if it has inherited children.

From: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)heterodb(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUG?] postgres_fdw incorrectly updates remote table if it has inherited children.
Date: 2020-03-01 04:46:59
Message-ID: CAOP8fzaKHv4DdNUvBcygXuG0HymVrcesbc=w9H8WBH3SsWpCCA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Amit,

Thanks, I didn't check the thread.

It looks to me the latest patch was submitted by Fujita-san, Oct-2018.
Then, Tom pointer out this simple approach has a problem of inefficient remote
query plan because of no intelligence on the structure of remote tables mapped
by postgres_fdw. After that, the patch has been left for a year.

Indeed, it is not an ideal query plan to execute for each updated rows...

postgres=# explain select * from rtable_parent where tableoid = 126397
and ctid = '(0,11)'::tid;
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Append (cost=0.00..5.18 rows=2 width=50)
-> Seq Scan on rtable_parent (cost=0.00..1.15 rows=1 width=31)
Filter: ((tableoid = '126397'::oid) AND (ctid = '(0,11)'::tid))
-> Tid Scan on rtable_child (cost=0.00..4.02 rows=1 width=68)
TID Cond: (ctid = '(0,11)'::tid)
Filter: (tableoid = '126397'::oid)
(6 rows)

Rather than the refactoring at postgres_fdw, is it possible to have a
built-in partition
pruning rule when "tableoid = <OID>" was supplied?
If partition mechanism would have the feature, it should not be a
complicated problem.

Best regards,

2020年3月1日(日) 12:39 Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 12:00 PM Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)heterodb(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I noticed the following scenario under the development of truncate
> > support on FDW.
> >
> > In case when 'ftable' maps a remote table that has inherited children,...
> >
> > postgres=# create table rtable_parent (id int, label text, x text);
> > CREATE TABLE
> > postgres=# create table rtable_child () inherits (rtable_parent);
> > CREATE TABLE
> > postgres=# insert into rtable_parent (select x, 'parent', md5(x::text)
> > from generate_series(1,10) x);
> > INSERT 0 10
> > postgres=# insert into rtable_child (select x, 'child', md5(x::text)
> > from generate_series(6,15) x);
> > INSERT 0 10
> > postgres=# create foreign table ftable (id int, label text, x text)
> > server loopback options (table_name 'rtable_parent');
> > CREATE FOREIGN TABLE
> >
> > The 'ftable' shows the results from both of the parent and children.
> > postgres=# select * from ftable;
> > id | label | x
> > ----+--------+----------------------------------
> > 1 | parent | c4ca4238a0b923820dcc509a6f75849b
> > 2 | parent | c81e728d9d4c2f636f067f89cc14862c
> > 3 | parent | eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3
> > 4 | parent | a87ff679a2f3e71d9181a67b7542122c
> > 5 | parent | e4da3b7fbbce2345d7772b0674a318d5
> > 6 | parent | 1679091c5a880faf6fb5e6087eb1b2dc
> > 7 | parent | 8f14e45fceea167a5a36dedd4bea2543
> > 8 | parent | c9f0f895fb98ab9159f51fd0297e236d
> > 9 | parent | 45c48cce2e2d7fbdea1afc51c7c6ad26
> > 10 | parent | d3d9446802a44259755d38e6d163e820
> > 6 | child | 1679091c5a880faf6fb5e6087eb1b2dc
> > 7 | child | 8f14e45fceea167a5a36dedd4bea2543
> > 8 | child | c9f0f895fb98ab9159f51fd0297e236d
> > 9 | child | 45c48cce2e2d7fbdea1afc51c7c6ad26
> > 10 | child | d3d9446802a44259755d38e6d163e820
> > 11 | child | 6512bd43d9caa6e02c990b0a82652dca
> > 12 | child | c20ad4d76fe97759aa27a0c99bff6710
> > 13 | child | c51ce410c124a10e0db5e4b97fc2af39
> > 14 | child | aab3238922bcc25a6f606eb525ffdc56
> > 15 | child | 9bf31c7ff062936a96d3c8bd1f8f2ff3
> > (20 rows)
> >
> > When we try to update the foreign-table without DirectUpdate mode,
> > remote query tries to update the rows specified by "ctid" system column.
> > However, it was not a unique key in this case.
> >
> > postgres=# explain update ftable set x = 'updated' where id > 10 and
> > pg_backend_pid() > 0;
> > QUERY PLAN
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Update on ftable (cost=100.00..133.80 rows=414 width=74)
> > -> Result (cost=100.00..133.80 rows=414 width=74)
> > One-Time Filter: (pg_backend_pid() > 0)
> > -> Foreign Scan on ftable (cost=100.00..133.80 rows=414 width=42)
> > (4 rows)
> >
> > [*] Note that pg_backend_pid() prevent direct update.
> >
> > postgres=# update ftable set x = 'updated' where id > 10 and
> > pg_backend_pid() > 0;
> > UPDATE 5
> > postgres=# select ctid,* from ftable;
> > ctid | id | label | x
> > --------+----+--------+----------------------------------
> > (0,1) | 1 | parent | c4ca4238a0b923820dcc509a6f75849b
> > (0,2) | 2 | parent | c81e728d9d4c2f636f067f89cc14862c
> > (0,3) | 3 | parent | eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3
> > (0,4) | 4 | parent | a87ff679a2f3e71d9181a67b7542122c
> > (0,5) | 5 | parent | e4da3b7fbbce2345d7772b0674a318d5
> > (0,11) | 6 | parent | updated
> > (0,12) | 7 | parent | updated
> > (0,13) | 8 | parent | updated
> > (0,14) | 9 | parent | updated
> > (0,15) | 10 | parent | updated
> > (0,1) | 6 | child | 1679091c5a880faf6fb5e6087eb1b2dc
> > (0,2) | 7 | child | 8f14e45fceea167a5a36dedd4bea2543
> > (0,3) | 8 | child | c9f0f895fb98ab9159f51fd0297e236d
> > (0,4) | 9 | child | 45c48cce2e2d7fbdea1afc51c7c6ad26
> > (0,5) | 10 | child | d3d9446802a44259755d38e6d163e820
> > (0,11) | 11 | child | updated
> > (0,12) | 12 | child | updated
> > (0,13) | 13 | child | updated
> > (0,14) | 14 | child | updated
> > (0,15) | 15 | child | updated
> > (20 rows)
> >
> > The WHERE-clause (id > 10) should affect only child table.
> > However, it updated the rows in the parent table with same ctid.
> >
> > How about your thought?
> > Probably, we need to fetch a pair of tableoid and ctid to identify
> > the remote table exactly, if not direct-update cases.
>
> This was this discussed on this thread:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFjFpRfcgwsHRmpvoOK-GUQi-n8MgAS%2BOxcQo%3DaBDn1COywmcg%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Solutions have been proposed too, but none finalized yet.
>
> Thanks,
> Amit

--
HeteroDB, Inc / The PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)heterodb(dot)com>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2020-03-01 04:57:47 Re: bool_plperl transform
Previous Message Amit Langote 2020-03-01 04:40:08 Re: [PATCH] Add schema and table names to partition error