From d5e3a336869ff2f0abe299440358c70a2c6a5d34 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: nkey Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:16:10 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v7 4/4] Modify the ExecInitPartitionInfo function to consider partitioned indexes that are potentially processed by REINDEX CONCURRENTLY as arbiters as well. This is necessary to ensure that all concurrent transactions use the same set of arbiter indexes. The patch resolves the issues in the following specs: * reindex_concurrently_upsert_partitioned --- src/backend/executor/execPartition.c | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c b/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c index 7e71d422a62..3922ae39681 100644 --- a/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c +++ b/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c @@ -483,6 +483,48 @@ ExecFindPartition(ModifyTableState *mtstate, return rri; } +/* + * IsIndexCompatibleAsArbiter + * Checks if the indexes are identical in terms of being used + * as arbiters for the INSERT ON CONFLICT operation by comparing + * them to the provided arbiter index. + * + * Returns the true if indexes are compatible. + */ +static bool +IsIndexCompatibleAsArbiter(Relation arbiterIndexRelation, + IndexInfo *arbiterIndexInfo, + Relation indexRelation, + IndexInfo *indexInfo) +{ + int i; + + if (arbiterIndexInfo->ii_Unique != indexInfo->ii_Unique) + return false; + /* it is not supported for cases of exclusion constraints. */ + if (arbiterIndexInfo->ii_ExclusionOps != NULL || indexInfo->ii_ExclusionOps != NULL) + return false; + if (arbiterIndexRelation->rd_index->indnkeyatts != indexRelation->rd_index->indnkeyatts) + return false; + + for (i = 0; i < indexRelation->rd_index->indnkeyatts; i++) + { + int arbiterAttoNo = arbiterIndexRelation->rd_index->indkey.values[i]; + int attoNo = indexRelation->rd_index->indkey.values[i]; + if (arbiterAttoNo != attoNo) + return false; + } + + if (list_difference(RelationGetIndexExpressions(arbiterIndexRelation), + RelationGetIndexExpressions(indexRelation)) != NIL) + return false; + + if (list_difference(RelationGetIndexPredicate(arbiterIndexRelation), + RelationGetIndexPredicate(indexRelation)) != NIL) + return false; + return true; +} + /* * ExecInitPartitionInfo * Lock the partition and initialize ResultRelInfo. Also setup other @@ -693,6 +735,8 @@ ExecInitPartitionInfo(ModifyTableState *mtstate, EState *estate, if (rootResultRelInfo->ri_onConflictArbiterIndexes != NIL) { List *childIdxs; + List *nonAncestorIdxs = NIL; + int i, j, additional_arbiters = 0; childIdxs = RelationGetIndexList(leaf_part_rri->ri_RelationDesc); @@ -703,23 +747,74 @@ ExecInitPartitionInfo(ModifyTableState *mtstate, EState *estate, ListCell *lc2; ancestors = get_partition_ancestors(childIdx); - foreach(lc2, rootResultRelInfo->ri_onConflictArbiterIndexes) + if (ancestors) { - if (list_member_oid(ancestors, lfirst_oid(lc2))) - arbiterIndexes = lappend_oid(arbiterIndexes, childIdx); + foreach(lc2, rootResultRelInfo->ri_onConflictArbiterIndexes) + { + if (list_member_oid(ancestors, lfirst_oid(lc2))) + arbiterIndexes = lappend_oid(arbiterIndexes, childIdx); + } } + else /* No ancestor was found for that index. Save it for rechecking later. */ + nonAncestorIdxs = lappend_oid(nonAncestorIdxs, childIdx); list_free(ancestors); } + + /* + * If any non-ancestor indexes are found, we need to compare them with other + * indexes of the relation that will be used as arbiters. This is necessary + * when a partitioned index is processed by REINDEX CONCURRENTLY. Both indexes + * must be considered as arbiters to ensure that all concurrent transactions + * use the same set of arbiters. + */ + if (nonAncestorIdxs) + { + for (i = 0; i < leaf_part_rri->ri_NumIndices; i++) + { + if (list_member_oid(nonAncestorIdxs, leaf_part_rri->ri_IndexRelationDescs[i]->rd_index->indexrelid)) + { + Relation nonAncestorIndexRelation = leaf_part_rri->ri_IndexRelationDescs[i]; + IndexInfo *nonAncestorIndexInfo = leaf_part_rri->ri_IndexRelationInfo[i]; + Assert(!list_member_oid(arbiterIndexes, nonAncestorIndexRelation->rd_index->indexrelid)); + + /* It is too early to us non-ready indexes as arbiters */ + if (!nonAncestorIndexInfo->ii_ReadyForInserts) + continue; + + for (j = 0; j < leaf_part_rri->ri_NumIndices; j++) + { + if (list_member_oid(arbiterIndexes, + leaf_part_rri->ri_IndexRelationDescs[j]->rd_index->indexrelid)) + { + Relation arbiterIndexRelation = leaf_part_rri->ri_IndexRelationDescs[j]; + IndexInfo *arbiterIndexInfo = leaf_part_rri->ri_IndexRelationInfo[j]; + + /* If non-ancestor index are compatible to arbiter - use it as arbiter too. */ + if (IsIndexCompatibleAsArbiter(arbiterIndexRelation, arbiterIndexInfo, + nonAncestorIndexRelation, nonAncestorIndexInfo)) + { + arbiterIndexes = lappend_oid(arbiterIndexes, + nonAncestorIndexRelation->rd_index->indexrelid); + additional_arbiters++; + } + } + } + } + } + } + list_free(nonAncestorIdxs); + + /* + * If the resulting lists are of inequal length, something is wrong. + * (This shouldn't happen, since arbiter index selection should not + * pick up a non-ready index.) + * + * But we need to consider an additional arbiter indexes also. + */ + if (list_length(rootResultRelInfo->ri_onConflictArbiterIndexes) != + list_length(arbiterIndexes) - additional_arbiters) + elog(ERROR, "invalid arbiter index list"); } - - /* - * If the resulting lists are of inequal length, something is wrong. - * (This shouldn't happen, since arbiter index selection should not - * pick up an invalid index.) - */ - if (list_length(rootResultRelInfo->ri_onConflictArbiterIndexes) != - list_length(arbiterIndexes)) - elog(ERROR, "invalid arbiter index list"); leaf_part_rri->ri_onConflictArbiterIndexes = arbiterIndexes; /* -- 2.43.0