Fix extreme skew detection in Parallel Hash Join.

After repartitioning the inner side of a hash join that would have
exceeded the allowed size, we check if all the tuples from a parent
partition moved to one child partition.  That is evidence that it
contains duplicate keys and later attempts to repartition will also
fail, so we should give up trying to limit memory (for lack of a better
fallback strategy).

A thinko prevented the check from working correctly in partition 0 (the
one that is partially loaded into memory already).  After
repartitioning, we should check for extreme skew if the *parent*
partition's space_exhausted flag was set, not the child partition's.
The consequence was repeated futile repartitioning until per-partition
data exceeded various limits including "ERROR: invalid DSA memory alloc
request size 1811939328", OS allocation failure, or temporary disk space
errors.  (We could also do something about some of those symptoms, but
that's material for separate es.)

This problem only became likely when PostgreSQL 16 introduced support
for Parallel Hash Right/Full Join, allowing NULL keys into the hash
table.  Repartitioning always leaves NULL in partition 0, no matter how
many times you do it, because the hash value is all zero bits.  That's
unlikely for other hashed values, but they might still have caused
wasted extra effort before giving up.

Back- to all supported releases.

Reported-by: Craig Milhiser <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Andrei Lepikhov <[email protected]>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BwnhO1OfgXbmXgC4fv_uu%3DOxcDQuHvfoQ4k0DFeB0Qqd-X-rQ%40mail.gmail.com

diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeHash.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeHash.c
index 4d64ae0dcc23b5693e395b5fba5806753a93b2b9..b02d787f6dd5bbed6c8fee567d1f58ad777f35b0 100644 (file)
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeHash.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeHash.c
@@ -1252,6 +1252,7 @@ ExecParallelHashIncreaseNumBatches(HashJoinTable hashtable)
            if (BarrierArriveAndWait(&pstate->grow_batches_barrier,
                                     WAIT_EVENT_HASH_GROW_BATCHES_DECIDE))
            {
+               ParallelHashJoinBatch *old_batches;
                bool        space_exhausted = false;
                bool        extreme_skew_detected = false;
 
@@ -1259,25 +1260,31 @@ ExecParallelHashIncreaseNumBatches(HashJoinTable hashtable)
                ExecParallelHashEnsureBatchAccessors(hashtable);
                ExecParallelHashTableSetCurrentBatch(hashtable, 0);
 
+               old_batches = dsa_get_address(hashtable->area, pstate->old_batches);
+
                /* Are any of the new generation of batches exhausted? */
                for (i = 0; i < hashtable->nbatch; ++i)
                {
-                   ParallelHashJoinBatch *batch = hashtable->batches[i].shared;
+                   ParallelHashJoinBatch *batch;
+                   ParallelHashJoinBatch *old_batch;
+                   int         parent;
 
+                   batch = hashtable->batches[i].shared;
                    if (batch->space_exhausted ||
                        batch->estimated_size > pstate->space_allowed)
-                   {
-                       int         parent;
-
                        space_exhausted = true;
 
+                   parent = i % pstate->old_nbatch;
+                   old_batch = NthParallelHashJoinBatch(old_batches, parent);
+                   if (old_batch->space_exhausted ||
+                       batch->estimated_size > pstate->space_allowed)
+                   {
                        /*
                         * Did this batch receive ALL of the tuples from its
                         * parent batch?  That would indicate that further
                         * repartitioning isn't going to help (the hash values
                         * are probably all the same).
                         */
-                       parent = i % pstate->old_nbatch;
                        if (batch->ntuples == hashtable->batches[parent].shared->old_ntuples)
                            extreme_skew_detected = true;
                    }