This causes no behaviorial changes, only organizes better to implement modifying CTEs
Also rename ExtactInsertRangeTableEntry to ExtractResultRelationRTE,
as the source of this function didn't match the documentation
Remove Task's upsertQuery in favor of ROW_MODIFY_NONCOMMUTATIVE
Split up AcquireExecutorShardLock into more internal functions
Tests: Normalize multi_reference_table multi_create_table_constraints
Do it in two ways (a) re-use the rte list as much as possible instead of
re-calculating over and over again (b) Limit the recursion to the relevant
parts of the query tree
In this context, we define "Fast Path Planning for SELECT" as trivial
queries where Citus can skip relying on the standard_planner() and
handle all the planning.
For router planner, standard_planner() is mostly important to generate
the necessary restriction information. Later, the restriction information
generated by the standard_planner is used to decide whether all the shards
that a distributed query touches reside on a single worker node. However,
standard_planner() does a lot of extra things such as cost estimation and
execution path generations which are completely unnecessary in the context
of distributed planning.
There are certain types of queries where Citus could skip relying on
standard_planner() to generate the restriction information. For queries
in the following format, Citus does not need any information that the
standard_planner() generates:
SELECT ... FROM single_table WHERE distribution_key = X; or
DELETE FROM single_table WHERE distribution_key = X; or
UPDATE single_table SET value_1 = value_2 + 1 WHERE distribution_key = X;
Note that the queries might not be as simple as the above such that
GROUP BY, WINDOW FUNCIONS, ORDER BY or HAVING etc. are all acceptable. The
only rule is that the query is on a single distributed (or reference) table
and there is a "distribution_key = X;" in the WHERE clause. With that, we
could use to decide the shard that a distributed query touches reside on
a worker node.
With this commit, we all partitioned distributed tables with
replication factor > 1. However, we also have many restrictions.
In summary, we disallow all kinds of modifications (including DDLs)
on the partition tables. Instead, the user is allowed to run the
modifications over the parent table.
The necessity for such a restriction have two aspects:
- We need to acquire shard resource locks appropriately
- We need to handle marking partitions INVALID in case
of any failures. Note that, in theory, the parent table
should also become INVALID, which is too aggressive.
Philip Dubé
Hadi Moshayedi
Marco Slot
Onder Kalaci
velioglu