Fix bug with indexes on whole-row expressions
Hi, Thomas Munro and Laurenz Albe.
Since I didn't subscribe to the psql-hackers mailing list before this bug
was raised, please forgive me for not being able to reply to this email by
placing the email message below.
/messages/by-id/e48a5d9a2d3d72985d61ee254314f5f5f5444a55.camel@cybertec.at
I forbid to create indexes on whole-row expression in the following patch.
I'd like to hear your opinions.
--
Best Wishes,
ywgrit
Attachments:
forbid-whole-row-expression-index.patchtext/x-patch; charset=US-ASCII; name=forbid-whole-row-expression-index.patchDownload
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c b/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
index cd23ab3b25..e4451b1d36 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
@@ -572,9 +572,18 @@ DefineIndex(Oid relationId,
Oid root_save_userid;
int root_save_sec_context;
int root_save_nestlevel;
+ ListCell *lc;
root_save_nestlevel = NewGUCNestLevel();
+ foreach (lc, stmt->indexParams)
+ {
+ IndexElem *ielem = castNode(IndexElem, lfirst(lc));
+ if (IsA(ielem->expr, Var) && castNode(Var, ielem->expr)->varattno == 0)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_OBJECT_DEFINITION),
+ errmsg("cannot create index on whole-row expression of table '%s'", ielem->indexcolname)));
+ }
/*
* Some callers need us to run with an empty default_tablespace; this is a
* necessary hack to be able to reproduce catalog state accurately when
ywgrit <yw987194828@gmail.com> writes:
I forbid to create indexes on whole-row expression in the following patch.
I'd like to hear your opinions.
As I said in the previous thread, I don't think this can possibly
be acceptable. Surely there are people depending on the capability.
I'm not worried so much about the exact case of an index column
being a whole-row Var --- I agree that that's pretty useless ---
but an index column that is a function on a whole-row Var seems
quite useful. (Your patch fails to detect that, BTW, which means
it does not block the case presented in bug #18244.)
I thought about extending the ALTER TABLE logic to disallow changes
in composite types that appear in index expressions. We already have
find_composite_type_dependencies(), and it turns out that this already
blocks ALTER for the case you want to forbid, but we concluded that we
didn't need to prevent it for the bug #18244 case:
* If objsubid identifies a specific column, refer to that in error
* messages. Otherwise, search to see if there's a user column of the
* type. (We assume system columns are never of interesting types.)
* The search is needed because an index containing an expression
* column of the target type will just be recorded as a whole-relation
* dependency. If we do not find a column of the type, the dependency
* must indicate that the type is transiently referenced in an index
* expression but not stored on disk, which we assume is OK, just as
* we do for references in views. (It could also be that the target
* type is embedded in some container type that is stored in an index
* column, but the previous recursion should catch such cases.)
Perhaps a reasonable answer would be to issue a WARNING (not error)
in the case where an index has this kind of dependency. The index
might need to be reindexed --- but it might not, too, and in any case
I doubt that flat-out forbidding the ALTER is a helpful idea.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 7:01 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
ywgrit <yw987194828@gmail.com> writes:
I forbid to create indexes on whole-row expression in the following
patch.
I'd like to hear your opinions.
As I said in the previous thread, I don't think this can possibly
be acceptable. Surely there are people depending on the capability.
I'm not worried so much about the exact case of an index column
being a whole-row Var --- I agree that that's pretty useless ---
but an index column that is a function on a whole-row Var seems
quite useful. (Your patch fails to detect that, BTW, which means
it does not block the case presented in bug #18244.)I thought about extending the ALTER TABLE logic to disallow changes
in composite types that appear in index expressions. We already have
find_composite_type_dependencies(), and it turns out that this already
blocks ALTER for the case you want to forbid, but we concluded that we
didn't need to prevent it for the bug #18244 case:* If objsubid identifies a specific column, refer to that in error
* messages. Otherwise, search to see if there's a user column of
the
* type. (We assume system columns are never of interesting
types.)
* The search is needed because an index containing an expression
* column of the target type will just be recorded as a
whole-relation
* dependency. If we do not find a column of the type, the
dependency
* must indicate that the type is transiently referenced in an
index
* expression but not stored on disk, which we assume is OK, just
as
* we do for references in views. (It could also be that the
target
* type is embedded in some container type that is stored in an
index
* column, but the previous recursion should catch such cases.)Perhaps a reasonable answer would be to issue a WARNING (not error)
in the case where an index has this kind of dependency. The index
might need to be reindexed --- but it might not, too, and in any case
I doubt that flat-out forbidding the ALTER is a helpful idea.regards, tom lane
WARNING can be easily overlooked. Users of mobile/web apps don't see
Postgres WARNINGs.
Forbidding ALTER sounds more reasonable.
Do you see any good use cases for whole-row indexes?
And for such cases, wouldn't it be reasonable for users to specify all
columns explicitly? E.g.:
create index on t using btree(row(c1, c2, c3));
Thanks, tom. Considering the scenario where the indexed column is a
function Var on a whole expression, it's really not a good idea to disable
creating index on whole expression. I tried
find_composite_type_dependencies, it seems that this function can only
detect dependencies created by statements such as 'CREATE INDEX
test_tbl1_idx ON test_tbl1((row(x,y)::test_type1))', and cannot detect
dependencies created by statements such as 'CREATE INDEX test_tbl1_idx ON
test_tbl1((test _tbl1))'. After the execution of the former sql statement,
4 rows are added to the pg_depend table, one of which is the index ->
pg_type dependency. After the latter sql statement is executed, only one
row is added to the pg_depend table, and there is no index -> pg_type
dependency, so I guess this function doesn't detect all cases of index on
whole-row expression. And I would suggest to do the detection when the
index is created, because then we can get the details of the index and give
a warning in the way you mentioned.
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 于2023年12月13日周三 23:01写道:
Show quoted text
ywgrit <yw987194828@gmail.com> writes:
I forbid to create indexes on whole-row expression in the following
patch.
I'd like to hear your opinions.
As I said in the previous thread, I don't think this can possibly
be acceptable. Surely there are people depending on the capability.
I'm not worried so much about the exact case of an index column
being a whole-row Var --- I agree that that's pretty useless ---
but an index column that is a function on a whole-row Var seems
quite useful. (Your patch fails to detect that, BTW, which means
it does not block the case presented in bug #18244.)I thought about extending the ALTER TABLE logic to disallow changes
in composite types that appear in index expressions. We already have
find_composite_type_dependencies(), and it turns out that this already
blocks ALTER for the case you want to forbid, but we concluded that we
didn't need to prevent it for the bug #18244 case:* If objsubid identifies a specific column, refer to that in error
* messages. Otherwise, search to see if there's a user column of
the
* type. (We assume system columns are never of interesting
types.)
* The search is needed because an index containing an expression
* column of the target type will just be recorded as a
whole-relation
* dependency. If we do not find a column of the type, the
dependency
* must indicate that the type is transiently referenced in an
index
* expression but not stored on disk, which we assume is OK, just
as
* we do for references in views. (It could also be that the
target
* type is embedded in some container type that is stored in an
index
* column, but the previous recursion should catch such cases.)Perhaps a reasonable answer would be to issue a WARNING (not error)
in the case where an index has this kind of dependency. The index
might need to be reindexed --- but it might not, too, and in any case
I doubt that flat-out forbidding the ALTER is a helpful idea.regards, tom lane