1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
|
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /><title>64.5. Index Uniqueness Checks</title><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="stylesheet.css" /><link rev="made" href="pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org" /><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets Vsnapshot" /><link rel="prev" href="index-locking.html" title="64.4. Index Locking Considerations" /><link rel="next" href="index-cost-estimation.html" title="64.6. Index Cost Estimation Functions" /></head><body id="docContent" class="container-fluid col-10"><div class="navheader"><table width="100%" summary="Navigation header"><tr><th colspan="5" align="center">64.5. Index Uniqueness Checks</th></tr><tr><td width="10%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="index-locking.html" title="64.4. Index Locking Considerations">Prev</a> </td><td width="10%" align="left"><a accesskey="u" href="indexam.html" title="Chapter 64. Index Access Method Interface Definition">Up</a></td><th width="60%" align="center">Chapter 64. Index Access Method Interface Definition</th><td width="10%" align="right"><a accesskey="h" href="index.html" title="PostgreSQL 15.6 Documentation">Home</a></td><td width="10%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="index-cost-estimation.html" title="64.6. Index Cost Estimation Functions">Next</a></td></tr></table><hr /></div><div class="sect1" id="INDEX-UNIQUE-CHECKS"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both">64.5. Index Uniqueness Checks</h2></div></div></div><p>
<span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span> enforces SQL uniqueness constraints
using <em class="firstterm">unique indexes</em>, which are indexes that disallow
multiple entries with identical keys. An access method that supports this
feature sets <code class="structfield">amcanunique</code> true.
(At present, only b-tree supports it.) Columns listed in the
<code class="literal">INCLUDE</code> clause are not considered when enforcing
uniqueness.
</p><p>
Because of MVCC, it is always necessary to allow duplicate entries to
exist physically in an index: the entries might refer to successive
versions of a single logical row. The behavior we actually want to
enforce is that no MVCC snapshot could include two rows with equal
index keys. This breaks down into the following cases that must be
checked when inserting a new row into a unique index:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>
If a conflicting valid row has been deleted by the current transaction,
it's okay. (In particular, since an UPDATE always deletes the old row
version before inserting the new version, this will allow an UPDATE on
a row without changing the key.)
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
If a conflicting row has been inserted by an as-yet-uncommitted
transaction, the would-be inserter must wait to see if that transaction
commits. If it rolls back then there is no conflict. If it commits
without deleting the conflicting row again, there is a uniqueness
violation. (In practice we just wait for the other transaction to
end and then redo the visibility check in toto.)
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Similarly, if a conflicting valid row has been deleted by an
as-yet-uncommitted transaction, the would-be inserter must wait
for that transaction to commit or abort, and then repeat the test.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
</p><p>
Furthermore, immediately before reporting a uniqueness violation
according to the above rules, the access method must recheck the
liveness of the row being inserted. If it is committed dead then
no violation should be reported. (This case cannot occur during the
ordinary scenario of inserting a row that's just been created by
the current transaction. It can happen during
<code class="command">CREATE UNIQUE INDEX CONCURRENTLY</code>, however.)
</p><p>
We require the index access method to apply these tests itself, which
means that it must reach into the heap to check the commit status of
any row that is shown to have a duplicate key according to the index
contents. This is without a doubt ugly and non-modular, but it saves
redundant work: if we did a separate probe then the index lookup for
a conflicting row would be essentially repeated while finding the place to
insert the new row's index entry. What's more, there is no obvious way
to avoid race conditions unless the conflict check is an integral part
of insertion of the new index entry.
</p><p>
If the unique constraint is deferrable, there is additional complexity:
we need to be able to insert an index entry for a new row, but defer any
uniqueness-violation error until end of statement or even later. To
avoid unnecessary repeat searches of the index, the index access method
should do a preliminary uniqueness check during the initial insertion.
If this shows that there is definitely no conflicting live tuple, we
are done. Otherwise, we schedule a recheck to occur when it is time to
enforce the constraint. If, at the time of the recheck, both the inserted
tuple and some other tuple with the same key are live, then the error
must be reported. (Note that for this purpose, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">live</span>”</span> actually
means <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">any tuple in the index entry's HOT chain is live</span>”</span>.)
To implement this, the <code class="function">aminsert</code> function is passed a
<code class="literal">checkUnique</code> parameter having one of the following values:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>
<code class="literal">UNIQUE_CHECK_NO</code> indicates that no uniqueness checking
should be done (this is not a unique index).
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
<code class="literal">UNIQUE_CHECK_YES</code> indicates that this is a non-deferrable
unique index, and the uniqueness check must be done immediately, as
described above.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
<code class="literal">UNIQUE_CHECK_PARTIAL</code> indicates that the unique
constraint is deferrable. <span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span>
will use this mode to insert each row's index entry. The access
method must allow duplicate entries into the index, and report any
potential duplicates by returning false from <code class="function">aminsert</code>.
For each row for which false is returned, a deferred recheck will
be scheduled.
</p><p>
The access method must identify any rows which might violate the
unique constraint, but it is not an error for it to report false
positives. This allows the check to be done without waiting for other
transactions to finish; conflicts reported here are not treated as
errors and will be rechecked later, by which time they may no longer
be conflicts.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
<code class="literal">UNIQUE_CHECK_EXISTING</code> indicates that this is a deferred
recheck of a row that was reported as a potential uniqueness violation.
Although this is implemented by calling <code class="function">aminsert</code>, the
access method must <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> insert a new index entry in this
case. The index entry is already present. Rather, the access method
must check to see if there is another live index entry. If so, and
if the target row is also still live, report error.
</p><p>
It is recommended that in a <code class="literal">UNIQUE_CHECK_EXISTING</code> call,
the access method further verify that the target row actually does
have an existing entry in the index, and report error if not. This
is a good idea because the index tuple values passed to
<code class="function">aminsert</code> will have been recomputed. If the index
definition involves functions that are not really immutable, we
might be checking the wrong area of the index. Checking that the
target row is found in the recheck verifies that we are scanning
for the same tuple values as were used in the original insertion.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
</p></div><div class="navfooter"><hr /><table width="100%" summary="Navigation footer"><tr><td width="40%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="index-locking.html" title="64.4. Index Locking Considerations">Prev</a> </td><td width="20%" align="center"><a accesskey="u" href="indexam.html" title="Chapter 64. Index Access Method Interface Definition">Up</a></td><td width="40%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="index-cost-estimation.html" title="64.6. Index Cost Estimation Functions">Next</a></td></tr><tr><td width="40%" align="left" valign="top">64.4. Index Locking Considerations </td><td width="20%" align="center"><a accesskey="h" href="index.html" title="PostgreSQL 15.6 Documentation">Home</a></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top"> 64.6. Index Cost Estimation Functions</td></tr></table></div></body></html>
|
