This change adds a script to programatically group all includes in a
specific order. The script was used as a one time invocation to group
and sort all includes throught our formatted code. The grouping is as
follows:
- System includes (eg. `#include<...>`)
- Postgres.h (eg. `#include "postgres.h"`)
- Toplevel imports from postgres, not contained in a directory (eg.
`#include "miscadmin.h"`)
- General postgres includes (eg . `#include "nodes/..."`)
- Toplevel citus includes, not contained in a directory (eg. `#include
"citus_verion.h"`)
- Columnar includes (eg. `#include "columnar/..."`)
- Distributed includes (eg. `#include "distributed/..."`)
Because it is quite hard to understand the difference between toplevel
citus includes and toplevel postgres includes it hardcodes the list of
toplevel citus includes. In the same manner it assumes anything not
prefixed with `columnar/` or `distributed/` as a postgres include.
The sorting/grouping is enforced by CI. Since we do so with our own
script there are not changes required in our uncrustify configuration.
In this commit, we're introducing a way to prevent CTE inlining via a GUC.
The GUC is used in all the tests where PG 11 and PG 12 tests would diverge
otherwise.
Note that, in PG 12, the restriction information for CTEs are generated. It
means that for some queries involving CTEs, Citus planner (router planner/
pushdown planner) may behave differently. So, via the GUC, we prevent
tests to diverge on PG 11 vs PG 12.
When we drop PG 11 support, we should get rid of the GUC, and mark
relevant ctes as MATERIALIZED, which does the same thing.
These set of tests has changed in both PG 11 and PG 12.
The changes are only about CTE inlining kicking in both
versions, and yielding the exact same distributed planning.
With this commit we add the necessary Citus function to inline CTEs
in a queryTree.
You might ask, why do we need to inline CTEs if Postgres is already
going to do it?
Few reasons behind this decision:
- One techinal node here is that Citus does the recursive CTE planning
by checking the originalQuery which is the query that has not gone
through the standard_planner().
CTEs in Citus is super powerful. It is practically key for full SQL
coverage for multi-shard queries. With CTEs, you can always reduce
any query multi-shard query into a router query via recursive
planning (thus full SQL coverage).
We cannot let CTE inlining break that. The main idea is Citus should
be able to retry planning if anything goes after CTE inlining.
So, by taking ownership of CTE inlining on the originalQuery, Citus
can fallback to recursive planning of CTEs if the planning with the
inlined query fails. It could have been a lot harder if we had relied
on standard_planner() to have the inlined CTEs on the original query.
- We want to have this feature in PostgreSQL 11 as well, but Postgres
only inlines in version 12
All the code in this commit is direct copy & paste from Postgres
source code.
We can classify the copy&paste code into two:
- Copy paste from CTE inline patch from postgres
(https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=608b167f9f9c4553c35bb1ec0eab9ddae643989b)
These include the functions inline_cte(), inline_cte_walker(),
contain_dml(), contain_dml_walker().
It also include the code in function PostgreSQLCTEInlineCondition().
We prefer to extract that code into a seperate function, because
(a) we'll re-use the logic later (b) we added one check for PG_11
Finally, the struct "inline_cte_walker_context" is also copied from
the same Postgres commit.
- Copy paste from the other parts of the Postgres code
In order to implement CTE inlining in Postgres 12, the hackers
modified the query_tree_walker()/range_table_walker() with the
18c0da88a5
Since Citus needs to support the same logic in PG 11, we copy & pasted
that functions (and related flags) with the names pg_12_query_tree_walker()
and pg_12_range_table_walker()
Nils Dijk
Naisila Puka
Jeff Davis
Onder Kalaci
SaitTalhaNisanci
Onder Kalaci