Hi,
On 2022-10-31 14:37:39 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> and heapgetpage(). heapgettup() and heapgettup_pagemode() have a lot of
> duplicated code, confusingly nested if statements, and unnecessary local
> variables. While working on a feature for the AIO/DIO patchset, I
> noticed that it was difficult to add new code to heapgettup() and
> heapgettup_pagemode() because of how the functions are written.
Thanks for working on this - the current state is quite painful.
> From cde2d6720f4f5ab2531c22ad4a5f0d9e6ec1039d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Melanie Plageman <melanieplage...@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 20:00:34 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH v1 1/3] Remove breaks in HeapTupleSatisfiesVisibility
>
> breaks in HeapTupleSatisfiesVisibility were superfluous
> ---
> src/backend/access/heap/heapam_visibility.c | 7 -------
> 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam_visibility.c
> b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam_visibility.c
> index 6e33d1c881..dd5d5da190 100644
> --- a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam_visibility.c
> +++ b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam_visibility.c
> @@ -1769,25 +1769,18 @@ HeapTupleSatisfiesVisibility(HeapTuple htup, Snapshot
> snapshot, Buffer buffer)
> {
> case SNAPSHOT_MVCC:
> return HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC(htup, snapshot, buffer);
> - break;
> case SNAPSHOT_SELF:
> return HeapTupleSatisfiesSelf(htup, snapshot, buffer);
> - break;
> case SNAPSHOT_ANY:
> return HeapTupleSatisfiesAny(htup, snapshot, buffer);
> - break;
> case SNAPSHOT_TOAST:
> return HeapTupleSatisfiesToast(htup, snapshot, buffer);
> - break;
> case SNAPSHOT_DIRTY:
> return HeapTupleSatisfiesDirty(htup, snapshot, buffer);
> - break;
> case SNAPSHOT_HISTORIC_MVCC:
> return HeapTupleSatisfiesHistoricMVCC(htup, snapshot,
> buffer);
> - break;
> case SNAPSHOT_NON_VACUUMABLE:
> return HeapTupleSatisfiesNonVacuumable(htup, snapshot,
> buffer);
> - break;
> }
Not sure what the author of this code, a certain Mr Freund, was thinking when
he added those returns...
> From 9d8b01960463dc64ff5b111d523ff80fce3017af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Melanie Plageman <melanieplage...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:40:06 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH v1 2/3] Turn HeapKeyTest macro into function
>
> This should always be inlined appropriately now. It is easier to read as
> a function. Also, remove unused include in catcache.c.
> ---
> src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c | 10 ++--
> src/backend/utils/cache/catcache.c | 1 -
> src/include/access/valid.h | 76 ++++++++++++------------------
> 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
> b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
> index 12be87efed..1c995faa12 100644
> --- a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
> +++ b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
> @@ -716,8 +716,10 @@ heapgettup(HeapScanDesc scan,
>
> snapshot);
>
> if (valid && key != NULL)
> - HeapKeyTest(tuple,
> RelationGetDescr(scan->rs_base.rs_rd),
> - nkeys, key,
> valid);
> + {
> + valid = HeapKeyTest(tuple,
> RelationGetDescr(scan->rs_base.rs_rd),
> + nkeys, key);
> + }
>
> if (valid)
> {
superfluous parens.
> --- a/src/include/access/valid.h
> +++ b/src/include/access/valid.h
> @@ -19,51 +19,35 @@
> *
> * Test a heap tuple to see if it satisfies a scan key.
> */
> -#define HeapKeyTest(tuple, \
> - tupdesc, \
> - nkeys, \
> - keys, \
> - result) \
> -do \
> -{ \
> - /* Use underscores to protect the variables passed in as parameters */ \
> - int __cur_nkeys = (nkeys); \
> - ScanKey __cur_keys = (keys); \
> - \
> - (result) = true; /* may change */ \
> - for (; __cur_nkeys--; __cur_keys++) \
> - { \
> - Datum __atp; \
> - bool __isnull; \
> - Datum __test; \
> - \
> - if (__cur_keys->sk_flags & SK_ISNULL) \
> - { \
> - (result) = false; \
> - break; \
> - } \
> - \
> - __atp = heap_getattr((tuple), \
> - __cur_keys->sk_attno, \
> - (tupdesc), \
> - &__isnull); \
> - \
> - if (__isnull) \
> - { \
> - (result) = false; \
> - break; \
> - } \
> - \
> - __test = FunctionCall2Coll(&__cur_keys->sk_func, \
> -
> __cur_keys->sk_collation, \
> - __atp,
> __cur_keys->sk_argument); \
> - \
> - if (!DatumGetBool(__test)) \
> - { \
> - (result) = false; \
> - break; \
> - } \
> - } \
> -} while (0)
> +static inline bool
> +HeapKeyTest(HeapTuple tuple, TupleDesc tupdesc, int nkeys, ScanKey keys)
> +{
> + int cur_nkeys = nkeys;
> + ScanKey cur_key = keys;
> +
> + for (; cur_nkeys--; cur_key++)
> + {
> + Datum atp;
> + bool isnull;
> + Datum test;
> +
> + if (cur_key->sk_flags & SK_ISNULL)
> + return false;
> +
> + atp = heap_getattr(tuple, cur_key->sk_attno, tupdesc, &isnull);
> +
> + if (isnull)
> + return false;
> +
> + test = FunctionCall2Coll(&cur_key->sk_func,
> +
> cur_key->sk_collation,
> + atp,
> cur_key->sk_argument);
> +
> + if (!DatumGetBool(test))
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
Seems like a simple and nice win in readability.
I recall looking at this in the past and thinking that there was some
additional subtlety here, but I can't see what that'd be.
> From a894ce38c488df6546392b9f3bd894b67edf951e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Melanie Plageman <melanieplage...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:40:29 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH v1 3/3] Refactor heapgettup* and heapgetpage
>
> Simplify heapgettup(), heapgettup_pagemode(), and heapgetpage(). All
> three contained several unnecessary local variables, duplicate code, and
> nested if statements. Streamlining these improves readability and
> extensibility.
It'd be nice to break this into slightly smaller chunks.
> +
> +static inline void heapgettup_no_movement(HeapScanDesc scan)
> +{
FWIW, for function definitions we keep the return type (and with that also the
the "static inline") on a separate line.
> + ItemId lpp;
> + OffsetNumber lineoff;
> + BlockNumber page;
> + Page dp;
> + HeapTuple tuple = &(scan->rs_ctup);
> + /*
> + * ``no movement'' scan direction: refetch prior tuple
> + */
> +
> + /* Since the tuple was previously fetched, needn't lock page here */
> + if (!scan->rs_inited)
> + {
> + Assert(!BufferIsValid(scan->rs_cbuf));
> + tuple->t_data = NULL;
> + return;
Is it possible to have a no-movement scan with an uninitialized scan? That
doesn't really seem to make sense. At least that's how I understand the
explanation for NoMovement nearby:
* dir == NoMovementScanDirection means "re-fetch the tuple indicated
* by scan->rs_ctup".
We can't have a rs_ctup without an already started scan, no?
Looks like this is pre-existing code that you just moved, but it still seems
wrong.
> + }
> + page = ItemPointerGetBlockNumber(&(tuple->t_self));
> + if (page != scan->rs_cblock)
> + heapgetpage((TableScanDesc) scan, page);
We have a
BlockNumber page;
and
Page dp;
in this code which seems almost intentionally confusing. This again is a
pre-existing issue but perhaps we could clean it up first?
> +static inline Page heapgettup_continue_page(HeapScanDesc scan, BlockNumber
> page, ScanDirection dir,
> + int *linesleft, OffsetNumber *lineoff)
> +{
> + HeapTuple tuple = &(scan->rs_ctup);
Hm. Finding the next offset via rs_ctup doesn't seem quite right. For one,
it's not actually that cheap to extract the offset from an ItemPointer because
of the the way we pack it into ItemPointerData.
> + Page dp = BufferGetPage(scan->rs_cbuf);
> + TestForOldSnapshot(scan->rs_base.rs_snapshot, scan->rs_base.rs_rd, dp);
Newlines between definitions and code :)
Perhaps worth asserting that the scan is initialized and that rs_cbuf is valid?
> + if (ScanDirectionIsForward(dir))
> + {
> + *lineoff =
> OffsetNumberNext(ItemPointerGetOffsetNumber(&(tuple->t_self)));
> + *linesleft = PageGetMaxOffsetNumber(dp) - (*lineoff) + 1;
We can't access PageGetMaxOffsetNumber etc without holding a lock on the
page. It's not immediately obvious that that is held in all paths.
> +static inline BlockNumber heapgettup_initial_page(HeapScanDesc scan,
> ScanDirection dir)
> +{
> + Assert(!ScanDirectionIsNoMovement(dir));
> + Assert(!scan->rs_inited);
Is there a reason we couldn't set rs_inited in here, rather than reapeating
that in all callers?
ISTM that this function should deal with the
/*
* return null immediately if relation is empty
*/
logic, I think you now are repeating that check on every call to heapgettup().
> @@ -511,182 +711,55 @@ heapgettup(HeapScanDesc scan,
> ScanKey key)
> {
> HeapTuple tuple = &(scan->rs_ctup);
> - Snapshot snapshot = scan->rs_base.rs_snapshot;
> - bool backward = ScanDirectionIsBackward(dir);
> BlockNumber page;
> - bool finished;
> Page dp;
> - int lines;
> OffsetNumber lineoff;
> int linesleft;
> - ItemId lpp;
> +
> + if (ScanDirectionIsNoMovement(dir))
> + return heapgettup_no_movement(scan);
Maybe add an unlikely() - this path is barely ever used...
> /*
> - * calculate next starting lineoff, given scan direction
> + * return null immediately if relation is empty
> */
> - if (ScanDirectionIsForward(dir))
> + if (scan->rs_nblocks == 0 || scan->rs_numblocks == 0)
> {
As mentioned above, I don't think we should repeat the nblocks check on every
call.
> + page = scan->rs_cblock;
> + LockBuffer(scan->rs_cbuf, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE);
> + dp = heapgettup_continue_page(scan, page, dir, &linesleft,
> &lineoff);
> + goto continue_page;
> }
>
> /*
> * advance the scan until we find a qualifying tuple or run out of stuff
> * to scan
> */
> - lpp = PageGetItemId(dp, lineoff);
> - for (;;)
> + while (page != InvalidBlockNumber)
> {
> + heapgetpage((TableScanDesc) scan, page);
> + LockBuffer(scan->rs_cbuf, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE);
> + dp = heapgettup_start_page(scan, page, dir, &linesleft,
> &lineoff);
> + continue_page:
I don't like the goto continue_page at all. Seems that the paths leading here
should call LockBuffer(), heapgettup_start_page() etc? Possibly a do {} while
() loop could do the trick as well.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
