Re: Useless code in RelationCacheInitializePhase3

Hi,

On 2019-04-12 14:17:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> While looking at the pending patch to clean up management of
> rd_partcheck, I noticed that RelationCacheInitializePhase3 has code that
> purports to reload rd_partkey and rd_partdesc, but none for rd_partcheck.
> However, that reload code is dead code, as is easily confirmed by
> checking the code coverage report, because we have no partitioned system
> catalogs.
>
> Moreover, if somebody tried to add such a catalog, I'd bet a good deal
> of money that this code would not work. It seems highly unlikely that
> we could run RelationBuildPartitionKey or RelationBuildPartitionDesc
> successfully when we haven't even finished bootstrapping the relcache.

But it sure would be nice if we made it work at some point. Having
e.g. global, permanent + unlogged, and temporary tables attributes in a
separate pg_attribute would be quite an advantage (and much easier than
a separate pg_class). Obviously even that is *far* from trivial.

> I don't think that this foolishness is entirely the fault of the
> partitioning work; it's evidently modeled on the adjacent code to reload
> rules, triggers, and row security code. But that code is all equally
> dead, equally unlikely to work if somebody tried to invoke it, and
> equally likely to be forever unused because there are many other
> problems you'd have to surmount to support something like triggers or
> row security on system catalogs.

I don't see us wanting to go to supporting triggers, but I could see us
desiring RLS at some point. To hide rows a user doesn't have access to.

> I am less sure about whether the table-access-method stanza is as silly
> as the rest, but I do see that it's unreached in current testing.
> So I wonder whether there is any thought that we'd realistically support
> catalogs with nondefault AMs, and if there is, does anyone think that
> this code would work?

Right now it definitely won't work, most importantly because there's a
fair bit of catalog related code that triggers direct
heap_insert/update/delete, and expects systable_getnext() to not need
memory to allocate the result in the current context (hence the
!shouldFree assert) and just generally because a lot of places just
straight up assume the catalog is heap.

Most of that would be fairly easy to fix however. A lot of rote work,
but technically not hard. The hardest is probably a bunch of code that
uses xmin for cache validation and such, but that seems solvable.

I don't quite know however how we'd use the ability to technically be
able to have a different AM for catalog tables. One possible thing would
be using different builtin AMs for different catalog tables, that seems
like it'd not be too hard. But after that it gets harder - e.g. doing
an initdb with a different default AM sounds not impossible, but also
far from easy (we can't do pg_proc lookups before having initialized it,
which is why formrdesc hardcodes GetHeapamTableAmRoutine()). And having
different AMs per database seems even harder.

I think it probably would work for catalog tables, as it's coded right
now. There's no catalog lookups RelationInitTableAccessMethod() for
tables that return true for IsCatalogTable(). In fact, I think we should
apply something like:

diff --git a/src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c b/src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c
index 64f3c2e8870..7ff64b108c4 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c
+++ b/src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c
@@ -1746,6 +1746,7 @@ RelationInitTableAccessMethod(Relation relation)
* seem prudent to show that in the catalog. So just overwrite it
* here.
*/
+ Assert(relation->rd_rel->relam == InvalidOid);
relation->rd_amhandler = HEAP_TABLE_AM_HANDLER_OID;
}
else if (IsCatalogRelation(relation))
@@ -1935,8 +1936,7 @@ formrdesc(const char *relationName, Oid relationReltype,
/*
* initialize the table am handler
*/
- relation->rd_rel->relam = HEAP_TABLE_AM_OID;
- relation->rd_tableam = GetHeapamTableAmRoutine();
+ RelationInitTableAccessMethod(relation);

/*
* initialize the rel-has-index flag, using hardwired knowledge

To a) ensure that that is and stays the case b) avoid having the
necessary information in multiple places. Not sure why we not ended up
doing the thing in the second hunk earlier. Just using
RelationInitTableAccessMethod() seems cleaner to me.

Greetings,

Andres Freund