Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> writes:
> The problem is that it loops over the entire range table even though
> only one or handful of those entries actually need their permissions
> checked. Most entries, especially those of partition child tables
> have their requiredPerms set to 0, which David pointed out to me in
> [2], so what ExecCheckRTPerms() does in their case is pure overhead.
> An idea to fix that is to store the RT indexes of the entries that
> have non-0 requiredPerms into a separate list or a bitmapset in
> PlannedStmt.
I think perhaps we ought to be more ambitious than that, and consider
separating the list of permissions-to-check from the rtable entirely.
Your patch hardly qualifies as non-invasive, plus it seems to invite
errors of omission, while if we changed the data structure altogether
then the compiler would help find any not-updated code.
But the main reason that this strikes me as possibly a good idea
is that I was just taking another look at the complaint in [1],
where I wrote
>> I think it's impossible to avoid less-than-O(N^2) growth on this sort
>> of case. For example, the v2 subquery initially has RTEs for v2 itself
>> plus v1. When we flatten v1 into v2, v2 acquires the RTEs from v1,
>> namely v1 itself plus foo. Similarly, once vK-1 is pulled up into vK,
>> there are going to be order-of-K entries in vK's rtable, and that stacking
>> makes for O(N^2) work overall just in manipulating the rtable.
>>
>> We can't get rid of these rtable entries altogether, since all of them
>> represent table privilege checks that the executor will need to do.
Perhaps, if we separated the rtable from the required-permissions data
structure, then we could avoid pulling up otherwise-useless RTEs when
flattening a view (or even better, not make the extra RTEs in the
first place??), and thus possibly avoid that exponential planning-time
growth for nested views.
Or maybe not. But I think we should take a hard look at whether
separating these data structures could solve both of these problems
at once.
regards, tom lane
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/797aff54-b49b-4914-9ff9-aa42564a4d7d%40www.fastmail.com
