DESCRIPTION: Disallow distributed functions for functions depending on an extension
Functions depending on an extension cannot (yet) be distributed by citus. If we would allow this it would cause issues with our dependency following mechanism as we stop following objects depending on an extension.
By not allowing functions to be distributed when they depend on an extension as well as not allowing to make distributed functions depend on an extension we won't break the ability to add new nodes. Allowing functions depending on extensions to be distributed at the moment could cause problems in that area.
DESCRIPTION: Propagate CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
Distributed functions could be replaced, which should be propagated to the workers to keep the function in sync between all nodes.
Due to the complexity of deparsing the `CreateFunctionStmt` we actually produce the plan during the processing phase of our utilityhook. Since the changes have already been made in the catalog tables we can reuse `pg_get_functiondef` to get us the generated `CREATE OR REPLACE` sql.
DESCRIPTION: Propagate ALTER FUNCTION statements for distributed functions
Using the implemented deparser for function statements to propagate changes to both functions and procedures that are previously distributed.
This PR aims to add all the necessary logic to qualify and deparse all possible `{ALTER|DROP} .. {FUNCTION|PROCEDURE}` queries.
As Procedures are introduced in PG11, the code contains many PG version checks. I tried my best to make it easy to clean up once we drop PG10 support.
Here are some caveats:
- I assumed that the parse tree is a valid one. There are some queries that are not allowed, but still are parsed successfully by postgres planner. Such queries will result in errors in execution time. (e.g. `ALTER PROCEDURE p STRICT` -> `STRICT` action is valid for functions but not procedures. Postgres decides to parse them nevertheless.)
When a function is marked as colocated with a distributed table,
we try delegating queries of kind "SELECT func(...)" to workers.
We currently only support this simple form, and don't delegate
forms like "SELECT f1(...), f2(...)", "SELECT f1(...) FROM ...",
or function calls inside transactions.
As a side effect, we also fix the transactional semantics of DO blocks.
Previously we didn't consider a DO block a multi-statement transaction.
Now we do.
Co-authored-by: Marco Slot <marco@citusdata.com>
Co-authored-by: serprex <serprex@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: pykello <hadi.moshayedi@microsoft.com>
In this PR the default `threshold` of `rebalance_table_shards` was set to 0: https://github.com/citusdata/shard_rebalancer/pull/73
However, the default for get_rebalance_table_shards_plan was not updated. This
can cause the confusing situation where the actual steps run by
`rebalance_table_shards` are not the same as the ones returned by
`get_rebalance_table_shards_plan`.
We started copying parse trees by default further on in `multi_ProcessUtility`. That's not a problem for maintenance command, but might register for things like `PREPARE` and `EXECUTE`, which might happen thousands of times per second. Add a few common commands to the check at the start.
Marco Slot
Nils Dijk
Jelte Fennema
Marco Slot
Philip Dubé
Hanefi Onaldi
Hadi Moshayedi
Halil Ozan Akgül
SaitTalhaNisanci
Önder Kalacı
Hadi Moshayedi