Add a second implementation of INSERT INTO distributed_table SELECT ... that is used if
the query cannot be pushed down. The basic idea is to execute the SELECT query separately
and pass the results into the distributed table using a CopyDestReceiver, which is also
used for COPY and create_distributed_table. When planning the SELECT, we go through
planner hooks again, which means the SELECT can also be a distributed query.
EXPLAIN is supported, but EXPLAIN ANALYZE is not because preventing double execution was
a lot more complicated in this case.
This commit adds INSERT INTO ... SELECT feature for distributed tables.
We implement INSERT INTO ... SELECT by pushing down the SELECT to
each shard. To compute that we use the router planner, by adding
an "uninstantiated" constraint that the partition column be equal to a
certain value. standard_planner() distributes that constraint to all
the tables where it knows how to push the restriction safely. An example
is that the tables that are connected via equi joins.
The router planner then iterates over the target table's shards,
for each we replace the "uninstantiated" restriction, with one that
PruneShardList() handles. Do so by replacing the partitioning qual
parameter added in multi_planner() with the current shard's
actual boundary values. Also, add the current shard's boundary values to the
top level subquery to ensure that even if the partitioning qual is
not distributed to all the tables, we never run the queries on the shards
that don't match with the current shard boundaries. Finally, perform the
normal shard pruning to decide on whether to push the query to the
current shard or not.
We do not support certain SQLs on the subquery, which are described/commented
on ErrorIfInsertSelectQueryNotSupported().
We also added some locking on the router executor. When an INSERT/SELECT command
runs on a distributed table with replication factor >1, we need to ensure that
it sees the same result on each placement of a shard. So we added the ability
such that router executor takes exclusive locks on shards from which the SELECT
in an INSERT/SELECT reads in order to prevent concurrent changes. This is not a
very optimal solution, but it's simple and correct. The
citus.all_modifications_commutative can be used to avoid aggressive locking.
An INSERT/SELECT whose filters are known to exclude any ongoing writes can be
marked as commutative. See RequiresConsistentSnapshot() for the details.
We also moved the decison of whether the multiPlan should be executed on
the router executor or not to the planning phase. This allowed us to
integrate multi task router executor tasks to the router executor smoothly.
When executing queries with citus.task_executor = 'real-time', query
execution could, so far, spend a significant amount of time
sleeping. That's because we were
a) sleeping after several phases of query execution, even if we're not
waiting for network IO
b) sleeping for a fixed amount of time when waiting for network IO;
often a lot longer than actually required.
Just reducing the amount of time slept isn't a real solution, because
that just increases CPU usage.
Instead have the real-time executor's ManageTaskExecution return whether
a task is currently being processed, waiting for reads or writes, or
failed. When all tasks are waiting for IO use poll() to wait for IO
readyness.
That requires to slightly redefine how connection timeouts are handled:
before we counted the number of times ManageTaskExecution() was called,
and compared that with the timeout divided by the task check
interval. That, if processing of tasks took a while, could significantly
increase the time till a timeout occurred. Because it was based on the
ManageTaskExecution() being called on a constant interval, this approach
isn't feasible anymore. Instead measure the actual time since
connection establishment was started. That could in theory, if task
processing takes a very long time, lead to few passes over
PQconnectPoll().
The problem of sleeping too much also exists for the 'task-tracker'
executor, but is generally less problematic there, as processing the
individual tasks usually will take longer. That said, for e.g. the
regression tests it'd be helpful to use a similar approach.
Onder Kalaci
Marco Slot
velioglu
Marco Slot
Murat Tuncer
Eren Basak
Andres Freund
Jason Petersen