ALTER TABLE does not check for column existence before starting operations
Hi
While working on a big table recently, I noticed that ALTER TABLE does not
check for column existence in operations like SET NOT NULL before starting
working on the table, for instance adding a primary key.
It is thus possible, if a typo has been made, to generate a long lock and a
lot of WAL that will serve no purpose since the whole transaction will be
discarded.
For example :
toto=# alter table test add primary key(i), alter column typo set not null;
ERROR: column "typo" of relation "test" does not exist
Time: 10.794 s
The attached patch fixes this behaviour by adding a small check in the first
pass of alter table to make sure that a column referenced by an alter command
exists first. It also checks if the column is added by another alter sub-
command. It does not handle every scenario (dropping a column and then
altering it for instance), these are left to the exec code to exclude.
The patch has been checked with make check, and I see no documentation change
to do since this does not alter any existing documented behaviour.
Regards
Pierre
Attachments:
at_checkcolumnexists_v1.patchtext/x-patch; charset=UTF-8; name=at_checkcolumnexists_v1.patchDownload+58-0
Hi Pierre,
On 3/2/18 6:36 AM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
While working on a big table recently, I noticed that ALTER TABLE does not
check for column existence in operations like SET NOT NULL before starting
working on the table, for instance adding a primary key.
It is thus possible, if a typo has been made, to generate a long lock and a
lot of WAL that will serve no purpose since the whole transaction will be
discarded.For example :
toto=# alter table test add primary key(i), alter column typo set not null;
ERROR: column "typo" of relation "test" does not exist
Time: 10.794 sThe attached patch fixes this behaviour by adding a small check in the first
pass of alter table to make sure that a column referenced by an alter command
exists first. It also checks if the column is added by another alter sub-
command. It does not handle every scenario (dropping a column and then
altering it for instance), these are left to the exec code to exclude.
The patch has been checked with make check, and I see no documentation change
to do since this does not alter any existing documented behaviour.
This looks like a good idea. However, the last CF for PG11 is in
progress so it might be difficult to attract much comment/review right now.
I recommend entering this patch in the 2018-09 CF so it doesn't get lost.
Regards,
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
On Friday, March 2, 2018 2:44:16 PM CET David Steele wrote:
Hi Pierre,
On 3/2/18 6:36 AM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
While working on a big table recently, I noticed that ALTER TABLE does not
check for column existence in operations like SET NOT NULL before starting
working on the table, for instance adding a primary key.
It is thus possible, if a typo has been made, to generate a long lock and
a
lot of WAL that will serve no purpose since the whole transaction will be
discarded.For example :
toto=# alter table test add primary key(i), alter column typo set not
null;
ERROR: column "typo" of relation "test" does not exist
Time: 10.794 sThe attached patch fixes this behaviour by adding a small check in the
first pass of alter table to make sure that a column referenced by an
alter command exists first. It also checks if the column is added by
another alter sub- command. It does not handle every scenario (dropping a
column and then altering it for instance), these are left to the exec
code to exclude. The patch has been checked with make check, and I see no
documentation change to do since this does not alter any existing
documented behaviour.This looks like a good idea. However, the last CF for PG11 is in
progress so it might be difficult to attract much comment/review right now.I recommend entering this patch in the 2018-09 CF so it doesn't get lost.
Hi
Thanks for the answer.
I saw that bug two days ago but I had no time then to do the patch. Had I seen
the CF window was that close I would have hurried up… Heh, this will just wait
a few months. I will enter it in the 2018-09 CF as soon as it opens.
Regards
Pierre
Pierre Ducroquet <pierre.ducroquet@people-doc.com> writes:
On Friday, March 2, 2018 2:44:16 PM CET David Steele wrote:
I recommend entering this patch in the 2018-09 CF so it doesn't get lost.
Thanks for the answer.
I saw that bug two days ago but I had no time then to do the patch. Had I seen
the CF window was that close I would have hurried up… Heh, this will just wait
a few months. I will enter it in the 2018-09 CF as soon as it opens.
You can add entries to the -09 CF now.
regards, tom lane
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:36:41PM +0100, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
The attached patch fixes this behaviour by adding a small check in the first
pass of alter table to make sure that a column referenced by an alter command
exists first. It also checks if the column is added by another alter sub-
command. It does not handle every scenario (dropping a column and then
altering it for instance), these are left to the exec code to exclude.
The patch has been checked with make check, and I see no documentation change
to do since this does not alter any existing documented behaviour.
I looked at the patch. It is true that there is no need to change the
documentation. Tests also passes (but maybe some changes would be
needed).
I have a couple comments:
tuple = SearchSysCacheCopyAttName(RelationGetRelid(rel), colName);
I think it is necessary to release the heap tuple using heap_freetuple()
if it is valid after all work done.
Second comment is related with several subcommands (ALTER COLUMN
DEFAULT, SET NOT NULL, SET/RESET (options)). The following query fails
with the patch:
=# alter table test
alter non_existing set not null,
add non_existing text;
It raises the error 'column "non_existing" of relation "test" does not
exist'. But without the patch the query is executed without errors. It
is because of how Phase 2 is performed. Subcommands are executed in a pass
determined by subcommand type. AT_PASS_ADD_COL subcommands are executed
before AT_PASS_ADD_INDEX, AT_PASS_ADD_CONSTR and AT_PASS_MISC.
I'm not sure how important it is. But I think it could break backward
compatibility.
--
Arthur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company