Postgres server is in hot standbuy mode.
Asynchronou streaming binary replication is used.
Command like
INSERT INTO logfile (logdate) values (current_date)
Causes error
cannot execute INSERT in a read-only transaction.
Maybe it should be changed to
INSERT INTO logfile (logdate)
SELECT current_date
WHERE ???
What where condition should used ?
It should work starting at Postgres 9.0
If direct where clause is not possible, maybe some plpgsql function can used in where.
Maybe
show transaction_read_only
result should captured or some function can used.
Alternately application can determine if database is read-only in startup. Should show transaction_read_only result used for this.
Running INSERT on a standby server is not possible in pure (non-procedural) SQL because when the server is in standby mode, all the data-modification queries are rejected in planning phase, before it's executed.
It's possible with conditionals in PL/PgSQL.
DO $code$
BEGIN
IF NOT pg_is_in_recovery() THEN
INSERT INTO logfile (logdate) VALUES (current_date);
END IF;
END;
$code$;
However, it's probably not recommended - it's usually better to test pg_is_in_recovery() once (in application code) and then act accordingly.
I'm using pg_is_in_recovery() system function instead of transaction_read_only GUC because it's not exactly the same thing. But if you prefer that, please use:
SELECT current_setting('transaction_read_only')::bool
More info: DO command, conditionals in PL/PgSQL, system information functions.
When a statement in my PLPGSQL function (Postgres 9.6) is being run I can see the query on one line, and then all the parameters on another line. A 2-line logging. Something like:
LOG: execute <unnamed>: SELECT * FROM table WHERE field1=$1 AND field2=$2 ...
DETAIL: parameters: $1 = '-767197682', $2 = '234324' ....
Is it possible to log the entire query in pg_log WITH the parameters already replaced in the query and log it in a SINGLE line?
Because this would make it much easier to copy/paste the query to reproduce it in another terminal, especially if queries have dozens of parameters.
The reason behind this: PL/pgSQL treats SQL statements as prepared statements internally.
First: With default settings, there is no logging of SQL statements inside PL/pgSQL functions at all. Are you using auto_explain?
Postgres query plan of a UDF invocation written in pgpsql
The first couple of invocations in the same session, the SPI manager (Server Programming Interface) generates a fresh execution plan, based on actual parameter values. Any kind of logging should report parameter values inline.
Postgres keeps track and after a couple of invocations in the current session, if execution plans don't seem sensitive to actual parameter values, it will start reusing a generic, cached plan. Then you should see the generic plan of a prepared statements with $n parameters (like in the question).
Details in the chapter "Plan Caching" in the manual.
You can observe the effect with a simple demo. In the same session (not necessarily same transaction):
CREATE TEMP TABLE tbl AS
SELECT id FROM generate_series(1, 100) id;
PREPARE prep1(int) AS
SELECT min(id) FROM tbl WHERE id > $1;
EXPLAIN EXECUTE prep1(3); -- 1st execution
You'll see the actual value:
Filter: (id > 3)
EXECUTE prep1(1); -- several more executions
EXECUTE prep1(2);
EXECUTE prep1(3);
EXECUTE prep1(4);
EXECUTE prep1(5);
EXPLAIN EXECUTE prep1(3);
Now you'll see a $n parameter:
Filter: (id > $1)
So you can get the query with parameter values inlined on the first couple of invocations in the current session.
Or you can use dynamic SQL with EXECUTE, because, per documentation:
Also, there is no plan caching for commands executed via EXECUTE.
Instead, the command is always planned each time the statement is run.
Thus the command string can be dynamically created within the function
to perform actions on different tables and columns.
That can actually affect performance, of course.
Related:
PostgreSQL Stored Procedure Performance
I have written a script, using PL/pgSQL, that I run in pgAdmin III. The script deletes existing DB contents and then adds a bunch of "sample" data for the desired testing scenario (usually various types of load tests). Once the data is loaded, I would like to "vacuum analyze" the affected tables, both to recover the space from the deleted records and to accurately reflect the new contents.
I can use various workarounds (e.g. do the VACUUM ANALYZE manually, include drop/create statements for the various structures within the script, etc.) But, what I would really like to do is:
DO $$
BEGIN
-- parent table
FOR i IN 1..10000 LOOP
INSERT INTO my_parent_table( ... ) VALUES ...;
END LOOP;
VACUUM ANALYZE my_parent_table;
-- child table
FOR i IN 1..50000 LOOP
INSERT INTO my_child_table( ... ) VALUES ...;
END LOOP;
VACUUM ANALYZE my_child_table;
END;
$$;
When I run this, I get:
ERROR: VACUUM cannot be executed from a function or multi-command string
So then I tried moving the vacuum statements to the end like so:
DO $$
BEGIN
-- parent table
FOR i IN 1..10000 LOOP
INSERT INTO my_parent_table( ... ) VALUES ...;
END LOOP;
-- child table
FOR i IN 1..50000 LOOP
INSERT INTO my_child_table( ... ) VALUES ...;
END LOOP;
END;
$$;
VACUUM ANALYZE my_parent_table;
VACUUM ANALYZE my_child_table;
This give me the same error. Is there any way I can incorporate the vacuum analyze into the same script that adds the data?
I am using PostgreSQL v 9.2.
If you are running this from the pgAdmin3 query window with the "execute query" button, that sends the entire script to the server as one string.
If you execute it from the query window "execute pgScript" button, that sends the commands separately and so would work, except that it does not tolerate the DO syntax for anonymous blocks. You would have to create a function that does the currently anonymous work, and then invoke the "execute pgScript" with something like:
select inserts_function();
VACUUM ANALYZE my_parent_table;
VACUUM ANALYZE my_child_table;
The final solution I implemented ended up being a composite of suggestions made in the comments by a_horse_with_no_name and xzilla:
Using TRUNCATE instead of DELETE avoids the need for a VACUUM
ANALYZE can then be used by itself in-line during the script as needed
Let's say I've written plpgsql function that does the following:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION foobar (_foo_data_id bigint)
RETURNS bigint AS $$
BEGIN
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS tmp_foobar;
CREATE TEMP TABLE tmp_foobar AS
SELECT *
FROM foo_table ft
WHERE ft.foo_data_id = _foo_data_id;
-- more SELECT queries on unrelated tables
-- a final SELECT query that invokes tmp_foobar
END;
First question:
If I simultaneously invoked this function twice, is it possible for the second invocation of foobar() to drop the tmp_foobar table while the first invocation of foobar() is still running?
I understand that SELECT statements create an ACCESS SHARE lock, but will that lock persist until the SELECT statement completes or until the implied COMMIT at the end of the function?
Second question:
If the latter is true, will the second invocation of foobar() indefinitely re-try DROP TABLE IF EXISTS tmp_foobar; until the lock is dropped or will it fail at some point?
If you simultaneously invoke a function twice, it means you're using two separate sessions to do so. Temporary tables are not shared between sessions, so the second session would not "see" tmp_foobar from the first session, and there would be no interaction. See http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/sql-createtable.html#AEN70605 ("Temporary tables").
Locks persist until the end of the transaction (regardless of how you acquire them; exception are advisory locks, but that's not what you're doing.)
The second question does not need an answer, because the premise is false.
One more thing. It might be useful to create indexes on that temporary table of yours, and ANALYZE it; that might cause the final query to be faster.
I want to do a large update on a table in PostgreSQL, but I don't need the transactional integrity to be maintained across the entire operation, because I know that the column I'm changing is not going to be written to or read during the update. I want to know if there is an easy way in the psql console to make these types of operations faster.
For example, let's say I have a table called "orders" with 35 million rows, and I want to do this:
UPDATE orders SET status = null;
To avoid being diverted to an offtopic discussion, let's assume that all the values of status for the 35 million columns are currently set to the same (non-null) value, thus rendering an index useless.
The problem with this statement is that it takes a very long time to go into effect (solely because of the locking), and all changed rows are locked until the entire update is complete. This update might take 5 hours, whereas something like
UPDATE orders SET status = null WHERE (order_id > 0 and order_id < 1000000);
might take 1 minute. Over 35 million rows, doing the above and breaking it into chunks of 35 would only take 35 minutes and save me 4 hours and 25 minutes.
I could break it down even further with a script (using pseudocode here):
for (i = 0 to 3500) {
db_operation ("UPDATE orders SET status = null
WHERE (order_id >" + (i*1000)"
+ " AND order_id <" + ((i+1)*1000) " + ")");
}
This operation might complete in only a few minutes, rather than 35.
So that comes down to what I'm really asking. I don't want to write a freaking script to break down operations every single time I want to do a big one-time update like this. Is there a way to accomplish what I want entirely within SQL?
Column / Row
... I don't need the transactional integrity to be maintained across
the entire operation, because I know that the column I'm changing is
not going to be written to or read during the update.
Any UPDATE in PostgreSQL's MVCC model writes a new version of the whole row. If concurrent transactions change any column of the same row, time-consuming concurrency issues arise. Details in the manual. Knowing the same column won't be touched by concurrent transactions avoids some possible complications, but not others.
Index
To avoid being diverted to an offtopic discussion, let's assume that
all the values of status for the 35 million columns are currently set
to the same (non-null) value, thus rendering an index useless.
When updating the whole table (or major parts of it) Postgres never uses an index. A sequential scan is faster when all or most rows have to be read. On the contrary: Index maintenance means additional cost for the UPDATE.
Performance
For example, let's say I have a table called "orders" with 35 million
rows, and I want to do this:
UPDATE orders SET status = null;
I understand you are aiming for a more general solution (see below). But to address the actual question asked: This can be dealt with in a matter milliseconds, regardless of table size:
ALTER TABLE orders DROP column status
, ADD column status text;
The manual (up to Postgres 10):
When a column is added with ADD COLUMN, all existing rows in the table
are initialized with the column's default value (NULL if no DEFAULT
clause is specified). If there is no DEFAULT clause, this is merely a metadata change [...]
The manual (since Postgres 11):
When a column is added with ADD COLUMN and a non-volatile DEFAULT
is specified, the default is evaluated at the time of the statement
and the result stored in the table's metadata. That value will be used
for the column for all existing rows. If no DEFAULT is specified,
NULL is used. In neither case is a rewrite of the table required.
Adding a column with a volatile DEFAULT or changing the type of an
existing column will require the entire table and its indexes to be
rewritten. [...]
And:
The DROP COLUMN form does not physically remove the column, but
simply makes it invisible to SQL operations. Subsequent insert and
update operations in the table will store a null value for the column.
Thus, dropping a column is quick but it will not immediately reduce
the on-disk size of your table, as the space occupied by the dropped
column is not reclaimed. The space will be reclaimed over time as
existing rows are updated.
Make sure you don't have objects depending on the column (foreign key constraints, indices, views, ...). You would need to drop / recreate those. Barring that, tiny operations on the system catalog table pg_attribute do the job. Requires an exclusive lock on the table which may be a problem for heavy concurrent load. (Like Buurman emphasizes in his comment.) Baring that, the operation is a matter of milliseconds.
If you have a column default you want to keep, add it back in a separate command. Doing it in the same command applies it to all rows immediately. See:
Add new column without table lock?
To actually apply the default, consider doing it in batches:
Does PostgreSQL optimize adding columns with non-NULL DEFAULTs?
General solution
dblink has been mentioned in another answer. It allows access to "remote" Postgres databases in implicit separate connections. The "remote" database can be the current one, thereby achieving "autonomous transactions": what the function writes in the "remote" db is committed and can't be rolled back.
This allows to run a single function that updates a big table in smaller parts and each part is committed separately. Avoids building up transaction overhead for very big numbers of rows and, more importantly, releases locks after each part. This allows concurrent operations to proceed without much delay and makes deadlocks less likely.
If you don't have concurrent access, this is hardly useful - except to avoid ROLLBACK after an exception. Also consider SAVEPOINT for that case.
Disclaimer
First of all, lots of small transactions are actually more expensive. This only makes sense for big tables. The sweet spot depends on many factors.
If you are not sure what you are doing: a single transaction is the safe method. For this to work properly, concurrent operations on the table have to play along. For instance: concurrent writes can move a row to a partition that's supposedly already processed. Or concurrent reads can see inconsistent intermediary states. You have been warned.
Step-by-step instructions
The additional module dblink needs to be installed first:
How to use (install) dblink in PostgreSQL?
Setting up the connection with dblink very much depends on the setup of your DB cluster and security policies in place. It can be tricky. Related later answer with more how to connect with dblink:
Persistent inserts in a UDF even if the function aborts
Create a FOREIGN SERVER and a USER MAPPING as instructed there to simplify and streamline the connection (unless you have one already).
Assuming a serial PRIMARY KEY with or without some gaps.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f_update_in_steps()
RETURNS void AS
$func$
DECLARE
_step int; -- size of step
_cur int; -- current ID (starting with minimum)
_max int; -- maximum ID
BEGIN
SELECT INTO _cur, _max min(order_id), max(order_id) FROM orders;
-- 100 slices (steps) hard coded
_step := ((_max - _cur) / 100) + 1; -- rounded, possibly a bit too small
-- +1 to avoid endless loop for 0
PERFORM dblink_connect('myserver'); -- your foreign server as instructed above
FOR i IN 0..200 LOOP -- 200 >> 100 to make sure we exceed _max
PERFORM dblink_exec(
$$UPDATE public.orders
SET status = 'foo'
WHERE order_id >= $$ || _cur || $$
AND order_id < $$ || _cur + _step || $$
AND status IS DISTINCT FROM 'foo'$$); -- avoid empty update
_cur := _cur + _step;
EXIT WHEN _cur > _max; -- stop when done (never loop till 200)
END LOOP;
PERFORM dblink_disconnect();
END
$func$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
Call:
SELECT f_update_in_steps();
You can parameterize any part according to your needs: the table name, column name, value, ... just be sure to sanitize identifiers to avoid SQL injection:
Table name as a PostgreSQL function parameter
Avoid empty UPDATEs:
How do I (or can I) SELECT DISTINCT on multiple columns?
Postgres uses MVCC (multi-version concurrency control), thus avoiding any locking if you are the only writer; any number of concurrent readers can work on the table, and there won't be any locking.
So if it really takes 5h, it must be for a different reason (e.g. that you do have concurrent writes, contrary to your claim that you don't).
You should delegate this column to another table like this:
create table order_status (
order_id int not null references orders(order_id) primary key,
status int not null
);
Then your operation of setting status=NULL will be instant:
truncate order_status;
First of all - are you sure that you need to update all rows?
Perhaps some of the rows already have status NULL?
If so, then:
UPDATE orders SET status = null WHERE status is not null;
As for partitioning the change - that's not possible in pure sql. All updates are in single transaction.
One possible way to do it in "pure sql" would be to install dblink, connect to the same database using dblink, and then issue a lot of updates over dblink, but it seems like overkill for such a simple task.
Usually just adding proper where solves the problem. If it doesn't - just partition it manually. Writing a script is too much - you can usually make it in a simple one-liner:
perl -e '
for (my $i = 0; $i <= 3500000; $i += 1000) {
printf "UPDATE orders SET status = null WHERE status is not null
and order_id between %u and %u;\n",
$i, $i+999
}
'
I wrapped lines here for readability, generally it's a single line. Output of above command can be fed to psql directly:
perl -e '...' | psql -U ... -d ...
Or first to file and then to psql (in case you'd need the file later on):
perl -e '...' > updates.partitioned.sql
psql -U ... -d ... -f updates.partitioned.sql
I am by no means a DBA, but a database design where you'd frequently have to update 35 million rows might have… issues.
A simple WHERE status IS NOT NULL might speed up things quite a bit (provided you have an index on status) – not knowing the actual use case, I'm assuming if this is run frequently, a great part of the 35 million rows might already have a null status.
However, you can make loops within the query via the LOOP statement. I'll just cook up a small example:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION nullstatus(count INTEGER) RETURNS integer AS $$
DECLARE
i INTEGER := 0;
BEGIN
FOR i IN 0..(count/1000 + 1) LOOP
UPDATE orders SET status = null WHERE (order_id > (i*1000) and order_id <((i+1)*1000));
RAISE NOTICE 'Count: % and i: %', count,i;
END LOOP;
RETURN 1;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
It can then be run by doing something akin to:
SELECT nullstatus(35000000);
You might want to select the row count, but beware that the exact row count can take a lot of time. The PostgreSQL wiki has an article about slow counting and how to avoid it.
Also, the RAISE NOTICE part is just there to keep track on how far along the script is. If you're not monitoring the notices, or do not care, it would be better to leave it out.
Are you sure this is because of locking? I don't think so and there's many other possible reasons. To find out you can always try to do just the locking. Try this:
BEGIN;
SELECT NOW();
SELECT * FROM order FOR UPDATE;
SELECT NOW();
ROLLBACK;
To understand what's really happening you should run an EXPLAIN first (EXPLAIN UPDATE orders SET status...) and/or EXPLAIN ANALYZE. Maybe you'll find out that you don't have enough memory to do the UPDATE efficiently. If so, SET work_mem TO 'xxxMB'; might be a simple solution.
Also, tail the PostgreSQL log to see if some performance related problems occurs.
I would use CTAS:
begin;
create table T as select col1, col2, ..., <new value>, colN from orders;
drop table orders;
alter table T rename to orders;
commit;
Some options that haven't been mentioned:
Use the new table trick. Probably what you'd have to do in your case is write some triggers to handle it so that changes to the original table also go propagated to your table copy, something like that... (percona is an example of something that does it the trigger way). Another option might be the "create a new column then replace the old one with it" trick, to avoid locks (unclear if helps with speed).
Possibly calculate the max ID, then generate "all the queries you need" and pass them in as a single query like update X set Y = NULL where ID < 10000 and ID >= 0; update X set Y = NULL where ID < 20000 and ID > 10000; ... then it might not do as much locking, and still be all SQL, though you do have extra logic up front to do it :(
PostgreSQL version 11 handles this for you automatically with the Fast ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN with a non-NULL default feature. Please do upgrade to version 11 if possible.
An explanation is provided in this blog post.