If a plpython-language trigger caused another one to be invoked,
the "TD" dictionary created for the inner one would overwrite the
outer one's "TD" dictionary. This is more or less the same problem
that 1d2fe56e4 fixed for ordinary functions in plpython, so fix it
the same way, by saving and restoring "TD" during a recursive
invocation.
This fix makes an ABI-incompatible change in struct PLySavedArgs.
I'm not too worried about that because it seems highly unlikely that
any extension is messing with those structs. We could imagine doing
something weird to preserve nominal ABI compatibility in the back
branches, like keeping the saved TD object in an extra element of
namedargs[]. However, that would only be very nominal compatibility:
if anything *is* touching PLySavedArgs, it would likely do the wrong
thing due to not knowing about the additional value. So I judge it
not worth the ugliness to do something different there.
(I also changed struct PLyProcedure, but its added field fits
into formerly-padding space, so that should be safe.)
Per bug #18456 from Jacques Combrink. This bug is very ancient,
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3008982.1714853799@sss.pgh.pa.us
This adds a new object type "procedure" that is similar to a function
but does not have a return type and is invoked by the new CALL statement
instead of SELECT or similar. This implementation is aligned with the
SQL standard and compatible with or similar to other SQL implementations.
This commit adds new commands CALL, CREATE/ALTER/DROP PROCEDURE, as well
as ALTER/DROP ROUTINE that can refer to either a function or a
procedure (or an aggregate function, as an extension to SQL). There is
also support for procedures in various utility commands such as COMMENT
and GRANT, as well as support in pg_dump and psql. Support for defining
procedures is available in all the languages supplied by the core
distribution.
While this commit is mainly syntax sugar around existing functionality,
future features will rely on having procedures as a separate object
type.
Reviewed-by: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Fix PL/Python so that it can handle domains over composite, and so that
it enforces domain constraints correctly in other cases that were not
always done properly before. Notably, it didn't do arrays of domains
right (oversight in commit c12d570fa), and it failed to enforce domain
constraints when returning a composite type containing a domain field,
and if a transform function is being used for a domain's base type then
it failed to enforce domain constraints on the result. Also, in many
places it missed checking domain constraints on null values, because
the plpy_typeio code simply wasn't called for Py_None.
Rather than try to band-aid these problems, I made a significant
refactoring of the plpy_typeio logic. The existing design of recursing
for array and composite members is extended to also treat domains as
containers requiring recursion, and the APIs for the module are cleaned
up and simplified.
The patch also modifies plpy_typeio to rely on the typcache more than
it did before (which was pretty much not at all). This reduces the
need for repetitive lookups, and lets us get rid of an ad-hoc scheme
for detecting changes in composite types. I added a couple of small
features to typcache to help with that.
Although some of this is fixing bugs that long predate v11, I don't
think we should risk a back-patch: it's a significant amount of code
churn, and there've been no complaints from the field about the bugs.
Tom Lane, reviewed by Anthony Bykov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/24449.1509393613@sss.pgh.pa.us
Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4d wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
PL/Python failed if a PL/Python function was invoked recursively via SPI,
since arguments are passed to the function in its global dictionary
(a horrible decision that's far too ancient to undo) and it would delete
those dictionary entries on function exit, leaving the outer recursion
level(s) without any arguments. Not deleting them would be little better,
since the outer levels would then see the innermost level's arguments.
Since PL/Python uses ValuePerCall mode for evaluating set-returning
functions, it's possible for multiple executions of the same SRF to be
interleaved within a query. PL/Python failed in such a case, because
it stored only one iterator per function, directly in the function's
PLyProcedure struct. Moreover, one interleaved instance of the SRF
would see argument values that should belong to another.
Hence, invent code for saving and restoring the argument entries. To fix
the recursion case, we only need to save at recursive entry and restore
at recursive exit, so the overhead in non-recursive cases is negligible.
To fix the SRF case, we have to save when suspending a SRF and restore
when resuming it, which is potentially not negligible; but fortunately
this is mostly a matter of manipulating Python object refcounts and
should not involve much physical data copying.
Also, store the Python iterator and saved argument values in a structure
associated with the SRF call site rather than the function itself. This
requires adding a memory context deletion callback to ensure that the SRF
state is cleaned up if the calling query exits before running the SRF to
completion. Without that we'd leak a refcount to the iterator object in
such a case, resulting in session-lifespan memory leakage. (In the
pre-existing code, there was no memory leak because there was only one
iterator pointer, but what would happen is that the previous iterator
would be resumed by the next query attempting to use the SRF. Hardly the
semantics we want.)
We can buy back some of whatever overhead we've added by getting rid of
PLy_function_delete_args(), which seems a useless activity: there is no
need to delete argument entries from the global dictionary on exit,
since the next time anyone would see the global dict is on the next
fresh call of the PL/Python function, at which time we'd overwrite those
entries with new arg values anyway.
Also clean up some really ugly coding in the SRF implementation, including
such gems as returning directly out of a PG_TRY block. (The only reason
that failed to crash hard was that all existing call sites immediately
exited their own PG_TRY blocks, popping the dangling longjmp pointer before
there was any chance of it being used.)
In principle this is a bug fix; but it seems a bit too invasive relative to
its value for a back-patch, and besides the fix depends on memory context
callbacks so it could not go back further than 9.5 anyway.
Alexey Grishchenko and Tom Lane
Previously, plpython was in the habit of allocating a lot of stuff in
TopMemoryContext, and it was very slipshod about making sure that stuff
got cleaned up; in particular, use of TopMemoryContext as fn_mcxt for
function calls represents an unfixable leak, since we generally don't
know what the called function might have allocated in fn_mcxt. This
results in session-lifespan leakage in certain usage scenarios, as for
example in a case reported by Ed Behn back in July.
To fix, get rid of all the retail allocations in TopMemoryContext.
All long-lived allocations are now made in sub-contexts that are
associated with specific objects (either pl/python procedures, or
Python-visible objects such as cursors and plans). We can clean these
up when the associated object is deleted.
I went so far as to get rid of PLy_malloc completely. There were a
couple of places where it could still have been used safely, but on
the whole it was just an invitation to bad coding.
Haribabu Kommi, based on a draft patch by Heikki Linnakangas;
some further work by me
This provides a mechanism for specifying conversions between SQL data
types and procedural languages. As examples, there are transforms
for hstore and ltree for PL/Perl and PL/Python.
reviews by Pavel Stěhule and Andres Freund
plpython tried to use a single cache entry for a trigger function, but it
needs a separate cache entry for each table the trigger is applied to,
because there is table-dependent data in there. This was done correctly
before 9.1, but commit 46211da1b8 broke it
by simplifying the lookup key from "function OID and triggered table OID"
to "function OID and is-trigger boolean". Go back to using both OIDs
as the lookup key. Per bug report from Sandro Santilli.
Andres Freund
This replaces the former global variable PLy_curr_procedure, and provides
a place to stash per-call-level information. In particular we create a
per-call-level scratch memory context.
For the moment, the scratch context is just used to avoid leaking memory
from datatype output function calls in PLyDict_FromTuple. There probably
will be more use-cases in future.
Although this is a fix for a pre-existing memory leakage bug, it seems
sufficiently invasive to not want to back-patch; it feels better as part
of the major rearrangement of plpython code that we've already done as
part of 9.2.
Jan Urbański
This moves the code around from one huge file into hopefully logical
and more manageable modules. For the most part, the code itself was
not touched, except: PLy_function_handler and PLy_trigger_handler were
renamed to PLy_exec_function and PLy_exec_trigger, because they were
not actually handlers in the PL handler sense, and it makes the naming
more similar to the way PL/pgSQL is organized. The initialization of
the procedure caches was separated into a new function
init_procedure_caches to keep the hash tables private to
plpy_procedures.c.
Jan Urbański and Peter Eisentraut
