This allows MERGE commands to include WHEN NOT MATCHED BY SOURCE
actions, which operate on rows that exist in the target relation, but
not in the data source. These actions can execute UPDATE, DELETE, or
DO NOTHING sub-commands.
This is in contrast to already-supported WHEN NOT MATCHED actions,
which operate on rows that exist in the data source, but not in the
target relation. To make this distinction clearer, such actions may
now be written as WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET.
Writing WHEN NOT MATCHED without specifying BY SOURCE or BY TARGET is
equivalent to writing WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Alvaro Herrera, Ted Yu and Vik Fearing.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWqnKGc57Y_JanUBHQXNKcXd7r=0R4NEZUVwP+syRkWbA@mail.gmail.com
This allows a RETURNING clause to be appended to a MERGE query, to
return values based on each row inserted, updated, or deleted. As with
plain INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE commands, the returned values are
based on the new contents of the target table for INSERT and UPDATE
actions, and on its old contents for DELETE actions. Values from the
source relation may also be returned.
As with INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE, the output of MERGE ... RETURNING may be
used as the source relation for other operations such as WITH queries
and COPY commands.
Additionally, a special function merge_action() is provided, which
returns 'INSERT', 'UPDATE', or 'DELETE', depending on the action
executed for each row. The merge_action() function can be used
anywhere in the RETURNING list, including in arbitrary expressions and
subqueries, but it is an error to use it anywhere outside of a MERGE
query's RETURNING list.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Isaac Morland, Vik Fearing, Alvaro Herrera,
Gurjeet Singh, Jian He, Jeff Davis, Merlin Moncure, Peter Eisentraut,
and Wolfgang Walther.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWePEGQR5LBn-vD6SfeLZafzEm2Qy_L_Oky2=qw2w3Pzg@mail.gmail.com
This allows the target relation of MERGE to be an auto-updatable or
trigger-updatable view, and includes support for WITH CHECK OPTION,
security barrier views, and security invoker views.
A trigger-updatable view must have INSTEAD OF triggers for every type
of action (INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE) mentioned in the MERGE command.
An auto-updatable view must not have any INSTEAD OF triggers. Mixing
auto-update and trigger-update actions (i.e., having a partial set of
INSTEAD OF triggers) is not supported.
Rule-updatable views are also not supported, since there is no
rewriter support for non-SELECT rules with MERGE operations.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Jian He and Alvaro Herrera.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCVcB1g0nmxuEc-A+gGB0HnfcGQNGYH7gS=7rq0u0zOBXA@mail.gmail.com
rewriteRuleAction neglected to check for SubLink nodes in the
securityQuals of range table entries. This could lead to failing
to convert such a SubLink to a SubPlan, resulting in assertion
crashes or weird errors later in planning.
In passing, fix some poor coding in rewriteTargetView:
we should not pass the source parsetree's hasSubLinks
field to ReplaceVarsFromTargetList's outer_hasSubLinks.
ReplaceVarsFromTargetList knows enough to ignore that
when a Query node is passed, but it's still confusing
and bad precedent: if we did try to update that flag
we'd be updating a stale copy of the parsetree.
Per bug #17972 from Alexander Lakhin. This has been broken since
we added RangeTblEntry.securityQuals (although the presented test
case only fails back to 215b43cdc), so back-patch all the way.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17972-f422c094237847d0@postgresql.org
Given an updatable view with a DO ALSO INSERT ... SELECT rule, a
multi-row INSERT ... VALUES query on the view fails if the VALUES list
contains any DEFAULTs that are not replaced by view defaults. This
manifests as an "unrecognized node type" error, or an Assert failure,
in an assert-enabled build.
The reason is that when RewriteQuery() attempts to replace the
remaining DEFAULT items with NULLs in any product queries, using
rewriteValuesRTEToNulls(), it assumes that the VALUES RTE is located
at the same rangetable index in each product query. However, if the
product query is an INSERT ... SELECT, then the VALUES RTE is actually
in the SELECT part of that query (at the same index), rather than the
top-level product query itself.
Fix, by descending to the SELECT in such cases. Note that we can't
simply use getInsertSelectQuery() for this, since that expects to be
given a raw rule action with OLD and NEW placeholder entries, so we
duplicate its logic instead.
While at it, beef up the checks in getInsertSelectQuery() by checking
that the jointree->fromlist node is indeed a RangeTblRef, and that the
RTE it points to has rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY.
Per bug #17803, from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Tom Lane.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17803-53c63ed4ecb4eac6%40postgresql.org
DEFAULT markers appearing in an INSERT on an updatable view
could be mis-processed if they were in a multi-row VALUES clause.
This would lead to strange errors such as "cache lookup failed
for type NNNN", or in older branches even to crashes.
The cause is that commit 41531e42d tried to re-use rewriteValuesRTE()
to remove any SetToDefault nodes (that hadn't previously been replaced
by the view's own default values) appearing in "product" queries,
that is DO ALSO queries. That's fundamentally wrong because the
DO ALSO queries might not even be INSERTs; and even if they are,
their targetlists don't necessarily match the view's column list,
so that almost all the logic in rewriteValuesRTE() is inapplicable.
What we want is a narrow focus on replacing any such nodes with NULL
constants. (That is, in this context we are interpreting the defaults
as being strictly those of the view itself; and we already replaced
any that aren't NULL.) We could add still more !force_nulls tests
to further lobotomize rewriteValuesRTE(); but it seems cleaner to
split out this case to a new function, restoring rewriteValuesRTE()
to the charter it had before.
Per bug #17633 from jiye_sw. Patch by me, but thanks to
Richard Guo and Japin Li for initial investigation.
Back-patch to all supported branches, as the previous fix was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17633-98cc85e1fa91e905@postgresql.org
A security invoker view checks permissions for accessing its
underlying base relations using the privileges of the user of the
view, rather than the privileges of the view owner. Additionally, if
any of the base relations are tables with RLS enabled, the policies of
the user of the view are applied, rather than those of the view owner.
This allows views to be defined without giving away additional
privileges on the underlying base relations, and matches a similar
feature available in other database systems.
It also allows views to operate more naturally with RLS, without
affecting the assignments of policies to users.
Christoph Heiss, with some additional hacking by me. Reviewed by
Laurenz Albe and Wolfgang Walther.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b66dd6d6-ad3e-c6f2-8b90-47be773da240%40cybertec.at
It's unsafe to do this at parse time because addition of generated
columns to a table would not invalidate stored rules containing
UPDATEs on the table ... but there might now be dependent generated
columns that were not there when the rule was made. This also fixes
an oversight that rewriteTargetView failed to update extraUpdatedCols
when transforming an UPDATE on an updatable view. (Since the new
calculation is downstream of that, rewriteTargetView doesn't actually
need to do anything; but before, there was a demonstrable bug there.)
In v13 and HEAD, this leads to easily-visible bugs because (since
commit c6679e4fc) we won't recalculate generated columns that aren't
listed in extraUpdatedCols. In v12 this bitmap is mostly just used
for trigger-firing decisions, so you'd only notice a problem if a
trigger cared whether a generated column had been updated.
I'd complained about this back in May, but then forgot about it
until bug #16671 from Michael Paul Killian revived the issue.
Back-patch to v12 where this field was introduced. If existing
stored rules contain any extraUpdatedCols values, they'll be
ignored because the rewriter will overwrite them, so the bug will
be fixed even for existing rules. (But note that if someone were
to update to 13.1 or 12.5, store some rules with UPDATEs on tables
having generated columns, and then downgrade to a prior minor version,
they might observe issues similar to what this patch fixes. That
seems unlikely enough to not be worth going to a lot of effort to fix.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/10206.1588964727@sss.pgh.pa.us
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16671-2fa55851859fb166@postgresql.org
A view with conditional INSTEAD rules and no unconditional INSTEAD
rules or INSTEAD OF triggers is not auto-updatable. Previously we
relied on a check in the executor to catch this, but that's
problematic since the planner may fail to properly handle such a query
and thus return a particularly unhelpful error to the user, before
reaching the executor check.
Instead, trap this in the rewriter and report the correct error there.
Doing so also allows us to include more useful error detail than the
executor check can provide. This doesn't change the existing behaviour
of updatable views; it merely ensures that useful error messages are
reported when a view isn't updatable.
Per report from Pengzhou Tang, though not adopting that suggested fix.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAG4reAQn+4xB6xHJqWdtE0ve_WqJkdyCV4P=trYr4Kn8_3_PEA@mail.gmail.com
There was some debate about whether the code I'd added to remap
AppendRelInfos obtained from the initial SELECT planning run is
actually necessary. Add a test case demonstrating that it is.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/23831.1553873385@sss.pgh.pa.us
Previously, rewriteTargetListIU() generated a list of attribute
numbers from the targetlist, which were passed to rewriteValuesRTE(),
which expected them to contain the same number of entries as there are
columns in the VALUES RTE, and to be in the same order. That was fine
when the target relation was a table, but for an updatable view it
could be broken in at least three different ways ---
rewriteTargetListIU() could insert additional targetlist entries for
view columns with defaults, the view columns could be in a different
order from the columns of the underlying base relation, and targetlist
entries could be merged together when assigning to elements of an
array or composite type. As a result, when recursing to the base
relation, the list of attribute numbers generated from the rewritten
targetlist could no longer be relied upon to match the columns of the
VALUES RTE. We got away with that prior to 41531e42d3 because it used
to always be the case that rewriteValuesRTE() did nothing for the
underlying base relation, since all DEFAULTS had already been replaced
when it was initially invoked for the view, but that was incorrect
because it failed to apply defaults from the base relation.
Fix this by examining the targetlist entries more carefully and
picking out just those that are simple Vars referencing the VALUES
RTE. That's sufficient for the purposes of rewriteValuesRTE(), which
is only responsible for dealing with DEFAULT items in the VALUES
RTE. Any DEFAULT item in the VALUES RTE that doesn't have a matching
simple-Var-assignment in the targetlist is an error which we complain
about, but in theory that ought to be impossible.
Additionally, move this code into rewriteValuesRTE() to give a clearer
separation of concerns between the 2 functions. There is no need for
rewriteTargetListIU() to know about the details of the VALUES RTE.
While at it, fix the comment for rewriteValuesRTE() which claimed that
it doesn't support array element and field assignments --- that hasn't
been true since a3c7a993d5 (9.6 and later).
Back-patch to all supported versions, with minor differences for the
pre-9.6 branches, which don't support array element and field
assignments to the same column in multi-row VALUES lists.
Reviewed by Amit Langote.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15623-5d67a46788ec8b7f@postgresql.org
INSERT ... VALUES for a single VALUES row is implemented differently
from a multi-row VALUES list, which causes inconsistent behaviour in
the way that DEFAULT items are handled. In particular, when inserting
into an auto-updatable view on top of a table with a column default, a
DEFAULT item in a single VALUES row gets correctly replaced with the
table column's default, but for a multi-row VALUES list it is replaced
with NULL.
Fix this by allowing rewriteValuesRTE() to leave DEFAULT items in the
VALUES list untouched if the target relation is an auto-updatable view
and has no column default, deferring DEFAULT-expansion until the query
against the base relation is rewritten. For all other types of target
relation, including tables and trigger- and rule-updatable views, we
must continue to replace DEFAULT items with NULL in the absence of a
column default.
This is somewhat complicated by the fact that if an auto-updatable
view has DO ALSO rules attached, the VALUES lists for the product
queries need to be handled differently from the original query, since
the product queries need to act like rule-updatable views whereas the
original query has auto-updatable view semantics.
Back-patch to all supported versions.
Reported by Roger Curley (bug #15623). Patch by Amit Langote and me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15623-5d67a46788ec8b7f@postgresql.org
Previously, floating-point output was done by rounding to a specific
decimal precision; by default, to 6 or 15 decimal digits (losing
information) or as requested using extra_float_digits. Drivers that
wanted exact float values, and applications like pg_dump that must
preserve values exactly, set extra_float_digits=3 (or sometimes 2 for
historical reasons, though this isn't enough for float4).
Unfortunately, decimal rounded output is slow enough to become a
noticable bottleneck when dealing with large result sets or COPY of
large tables when many floating-point values are involved.
Floating-point output can be done much faster when the output is not
rounded to a specific decimal length, but rather is chosen as the
shortest decimal representation that is closer to the original float
value than to any other value representable in the same precision. The
recently published Ryu algorithm by Ulf Adams is both relatively
simple and remarkably fast.
Accordingly, change float4out/float8out to output shortest decimal
representations if extra_float_digits is greater than 0, and make that
the new default. Applications that need rounded output can set
extra_float_digits back to 0 or below, and take the resulting
performance hit.
We make one concession to portability for systems with buggy
floating-point input: we do not output decimal values that fall
exactly halfway between adjacent representable binary values (which
would rely on the reader doing round-to-nearest-even correctly). This
is known to be a problem at least for VS2013 on Windows.
Our version of the Ryu code originates from
https://github.com/ulfjack/ryu/ at commit c9c3fb1979, but with the
following (significant) modifications:
- Output format is changed to use fixed-point notation for small
exponents, as printf would, and also to use lowercase 'e', a
minimum of 2 exponent digits, and a mandatory sign on the exponent,
to keep the formatting as close as possible to previous output.
- The output of exact midpoint values is disabled as noted above.
- The integer fast-path code is changed somewhat (since we have
fixed-point output and the upstream did not).
- Our project style has been largely applied to the code with the
exception of C99 declaration-after-statement, which has been
retained as an exception to our present policy.
- Most of upstream's debugging and conditionals are removed, and we
use our own configure tests to determine things like uint128
availability.
Changing the float output format obviously affects a number of
regression tests. This patch uses an explicit setting of
extra_float_digits=0 for test output that is not expected to be
exactly reproducible (e.g. due to numerical instability or differing
algorithms for transcendental functions).
Conversions from floats to numeric are unchanged by this patch. These
may appear in index expressions and it is not yet clear whether any
change should be made, so that can be left for another day.
This patch assumes that the only supported floating point format is
now IEEE format, and the documentation is updated to reflect that.
Code by me, adapting the work of Ulf Adams and other contributors.
References:
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3192369
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane, Andres Freund, Donald Dong
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87r2el1bx6.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
When expanding an updatable view that is an INSERT's target, the rewriter
failed to rewrite Vars in the ON CONFLICT UPDATE clause. This accidentally
worked if the view was just "SELECT * FROM ...", as the transformation
would be a no-op in that case. With more complicated view targetlists,
this omission would often lead to "attribute ... has the wrong type" errors
or even crashes, as reported by Mario De Frutos Dieguez.
Fix by adding code to rewriteTargetView to fix up the data structure
correctly. The easiest way to update the exclRelTlist list is to rebuild
it from scratch looking at the new target relation, so factor the code
for that out of transformOnConflictClause to make it sharable.
In passing, avoid duplicate permissions checks against the EXCLUDED
pseudo-relation, and prevent useless view expansion of that relation's
dummy RTE. The latter is only known to happen (after this patch) in cases
where the query would fail later due to not having any INSTEAD OF triggers
for the view. But by exactly that token, it would create an unintended
and very poorly tested state of the query data structure, so it seems like
a good idea to prevent it from happening at all.
This has been broken since ON CONFLICT was introduced, so back-patch
to 9.5.
Dean Rasheed, based on an earlier patch by Amit Langote;
comment-kibitzing and back-patching by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFYwGJ0xfzy8jaK80hVN2eUWr6huce0RU8AgU04MGD00igqkTg@mail.gmail.com
SELECT FOR UPDATE on a view should require UPDATE (as well as SELECT)
permissions on the view, and then the view's owner needs those same
permissions against the relations it references, and so on all the way
down to base tables. But ApplyRetrieveRule did things in the wrong order,
resulting in failure to mark intermediate view levels as needing UPDATE
permission. Thus for example, if user A creates a table T and an updatable
view V1 on T, then grants only SELECT permissions on V1 to user B, B could
create a second view V2 on V1 and then would be allowed to perform SELECT
FOR UPDATE via V2 (since V1 wouldn't be checked for UPDATE permissions).
To fix, just switch the order of expanding sub-views and marking referenced
objects as needing UPDATE permission. I think additional simplifications
are now possible, but that's distinct from the bug fix proper.
This is certainly a security issue, but the consequences are pretty minor
(just the ability to lock rows that shouldn't be lockable). Against that
we have a small risk of breaking applications that are working as-desired,
since nested views have behaved this way since such cases worked at all.
On balance I'm inclined not to back-patch.
Per report from Alexander Lakhin.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/24db7b8f-3de5-e25f-7ab9-d8848351d42c@gmail.com
Many of the objects we create during the regression tests are put in the
public schema, so that using the same names in different regression tests
creates a hazard of test failures if any two such scripts run concurrently.
This patch cleans up a bunch of latent hazards of that sort, as well as two
live hazards.
The current situation in this regard is far worse than it was a year or two
back, because practically all of the partitioning-related test cases have
reused table names with enthusiasm. I despaired of cleaning up that mess
within the five most-affected tests (create_table, alter_table, insert,
update, inherit); fortunately those don't run concurrently.
Other than partitioning problems, most of the issues boil down to using
names like "foo", "bar", "tmp", etc, without thought for the fact that
other test scripts might use similar names concurrently. I've made an
effort to make all such names more specific.
One of the live hazards was that commit 7421f4b8 caused with.sql to
create a table named "test", conflicting with a similarly-named table
in alter_table.sql; this was exposed in the buildfarm recently.
The other one was that join.sql and transactions.sql both create tables
named "foo" and "bar"; but join.sql's uses of those names date back
only to December or so.
Since commit 7421f4b8 was back-patched to v10, back-patch a minimal
fix for that problem. The rest of this is just future-proofing.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4627.1521070268@sss.pgh.pa.us
Otherwise, partitioned tables with RETURNING expressions or subject
to a WITH CHECK OPTION do not work properly.
Amit Langote, reviewed by Amit Khandekar and Etsuro Fujita. A few
comment changes by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/9a39df80-871e-6212-0684-f93c83be4097@lab.ntt.co.jp
Table partitioning, introduced in commit f0e44751d7, added a new
relkind - RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE. Update relation_is_updatable() to
handle it. Specifically, partitioned tables and simple views built on
top of them are updatable.
This affects the SQL-callable functions pg_relation_is_updatable() and
pg_column_is_updatable(), and the views information_schema.views and
information_schema.columns.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCXnbiFkMXgF4Ez1pmM2c-tS1z33bSq7OGbw7QQhHov%2B6Q%40mail.gmail.com
Commit 587cda35c added a test to updatable_views.sql that created
tables named the same as tables used by the concurrent inherit.sql
script. Unsurprisingly, this results in random failures.
Pick different names.
Per buildfarm.
Previously, ExecInitModifyTable was missing handling for WITH CHECK
OPTION, and view_query_is_auto_updatable was missing handling for
RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE.
Amit Langote, reviewed by me.
In an RLS query, we must ensure that security filter quals are evaluated
before ordinary query quals, in case the latter contain "leaky" functions
that could expose the contents of sensitive rows. The original
implementation of RLS planning ensured this by pushing the scan of a
secured table into a sub-query that it marked as a security-barrier view.
Unfortunately this results in very inefficient plans in many cases, because
the sub-query cannot be flattened and gets planned independently of the
rest of the query.
To fix, drop the use of sub-queries to enforce RLS qual order, and instead
mark each qual (RestrictInfo) with a security_level field establishing its
priority for evaluation. Quals must be evaluated in security_level order,
except that "leakproof" quals can be allowed to go ahead of quals of lower
security_level, if it's helpful to do so. This has to be enforced within
the ordering of any one list of quals to be evaluated at a table scan node,
and we also have to ensure that quals are not chosen for early evaluation
(i.e., use as an index qual or TID scan qual) if they're not allowed to go
ahead of other quals at the scan node.
This is sufficient to fix the problem for RLS quals, since we only support
RLS policies on simple tables and thus RLS quals will always exist at the
table scan level only. Eventually these qual ordering rules should be
enforced for join quals as well, which would permit improving planning for
explicit security-barrier views; but that's a task for another patch.
Note that FDWs would need to be aware of these rules --- and not, for
example, send an insecure qual for remote execution --- but since we do
not yet allow RLS policies on foreign tables, the case doesn't arise.
This will need to be addressed before we can allow such policies.
Patch by me, reviewed by Stephen Frost and Dean Rasheed.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8185.1477432701@sss.pgh.pa.us
When CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW acts on an existing view, don't update the
view options until after the view query has been updated.
This is necessary in the case where CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW is used on
an existing view that is not updatable, and the new view is updatable
and specifies the WITH CHECK OPTION. In this case, attempting to apply
the new options to the view before updating its query fails, because
the options are applied using the ALTER TABLE infrastructure which
checks that WITH CHECK OPTION is only applied to an updatable view.
If new columns are being added to the view, that is also done using
the ALTER TABLE infrastructure, but it is important that that still be
done before updating the view query, because the rules system checks
that the query columns match those on the view relation. Added a
comment to explain that, in case someone is tempted to move that to
where the view options are now being set.
Back-patch to 9.4 where WITH CHECK OPTION was added.
Report: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCUp%3Dz%3Ds4SzZjr14bfct_bdJNwMPi-gFi3Xc5k1ntbsAgQ%40mail.gmail.com
Move sequence metadata (start, increment, etc.) into a proper system
catalog instead of storing it in the sequence heap object. This
separates the metadata from the sequence data. Sequence metadata is now
operated on transactionally by DDL commands, whereas previously
rollbacks of sequence-related DDL commands would be ignored.
Reviewed-by: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
To ensure that "make installcheck" can be used safely against an existing
installation, we need to be careful about what global object names
(database, role, and tablespace names) we use; otherwise we might
accidentally clobber important objects. There's been a weak consensus that
test databases should have names including "regression", and that test role
names should start with "regress_", but we didn't have any particular rule
about tablespace names; and neither of the other rules was followed with
any consistency either.
This commit moves us a long way towards having a hard-and-fast rule that
regression test databases must have names including "regression", and that
test role and tablespace names must start with "regress_". It's not
completely there because I did not touch some test cases in rolenames.sql
that test creation of special role names like "session_user". That will
require some rethinking of exactly what we want to test, whereas the intent
of this patch is just to hit all the cases in which the needed renamings
are cosmetic.
There is no enforcement mechanism in this patch either, but if we don't
add one we can expect that the tests will soon be violating the convention
again. Again, that's not such a cosmetic change and it will require
discussion. (But I did use a quick-hack enforcement patch to find these
cases.)
Discussion: <16638.1468620817@sss.pgh.pa.us>
When converting an RTE with securityQuals into a security barrier
subquery RTE, ensure that the Vars in the new subquery's targetlist
all have varlevelsup = 0 so that they correctly refer to the
underlying base relation being wrapped.
The original code was creating new Vars by copying them from existing
Vars referencing the base relation found elsewhere in the query, but
failed to account for the fact that such Vars could come from sublink
subqueries, and hence have varlevelsup > 0. In practice it looks like
this could only happen with nested security barrier views, where the
outer view has a WHERE clause containing a correlated subquery, due to
the order in which the Vars are processed.
Bug: #13988
Reported-by: Adam Guthrie
Backpatch-to: 9.4, where updatable SB views were introduced
Rather than expect the Query returned by get_view_query() to be
read-only and then copy bits and pieces of it out, simply copy the
entire structure when we get it. This addresses an issue where
AcquireRewriteLocks, which is called by acquireLocksOnSubLinks(),
scribbles on the parsetree passed in, which was actually an entry
in relcache, leading to segfaults with certain view definitions.
This also future-proofs us a bit for anyone adding more code to this
path.
The acquireLocksOnSubLinks() was added in commit c3e0ddd40.
Back-patch to 9.3 as that commit was.
The newly added ON CONFLICT clause allows to specify an alternative to
raising a unique or exclusion constraint violation error when inserting.
ON CONFLICT refers to constraints that can either be specified using a
inference clause (by specifying the columns of a unique constraint) or
by naming a unique or exclusion constraint. DO NOTHING avoids the
constraint violation, without touching the pre-existing row. DO UPDATE
SET ... [WHERE ...] updates the pre-existing tuple, and has access to
both the tuple proposed for insertion and the existing tuple; the
optional WHERE clause can be used to prevent an update from being
executed. The UPDATE SET and WHERE clauses have access to the tuple
proposed for insertion using the "magic" EXCLUDED alias, and to the
pre-existing tuple using the table name or its alias.
This feature is often referred to as upsert.
This is implemented using a new infrastructure called "speculative
insertion". It is an optimistic variant of regular insertion that first
does a pre-check for existing tuples and then attempts an insert. If a
violating tuple was inserted concurrently, the speculatively inserted
tuple is deleted and a new attempt is made. If the pre-check finds a
matching tuple the alternative DO NOTHING or DO UPDATE action is taken.
If the insertion succeeds without detecting a conflict, the tuple is
deemed inserted.
To handle the possible ambiguity between the excluded alias and a table
named excluded, and for convenience with long relation names, INSERT
INTO now can alias its target table.
Bumps catversion as stored rules change.
Author: Peter Geoghegan, with significant contributions from Heikki
Linnakangas and Andres Freund. Testing infrastructure by Jeff Janes.
Reviewed-By: Heikki Linnakangas, Andres Freund, Robert Haas, Simon Riggs,
Dean Rasheed, Stephen Frost and many others.
While withCheckOption exprs had been handled in many cases by
happenstance, they need to be handled during set_plan_references and
more specifically down in set_plan_refs for ModifyTable plan nodes.
This is to ensure that the opfuncid's are set for operators referenced
in the withCheckOption exprs.
Identified as an issue by Thom Brown
Patch by Dean Rasheed
Back-patch to 9.4, where withCheckOption was introduced.
Looks like we can end up with different plans happening on the
buildfarm, which breaks the regression tests when we include
EXPLAIN output (which is done in the regression tests for
updatable security views, to ensure that the user-defined
function isn't pushed down to a level where it could view the
rows before the security quals are applied).
This adds in ANALYZE to hopefully make the plans consistent.
The ANALYZE ends up changing the original plan too, so the
update looks bigger than it really is. The new plan looks
perfectly valid, of course.
Views which are marked as security_barrier must have their quals
applied before any user-defined quals are called, to prevent
user-defined functions from being able to see rows which the
security barrier view is intended to prevent them from seeing.
Remove the restriction on security barrier views being automatically
updatable by adding a new securityQuals list to the RTE structure
which keeps track of the quals from security barrier views at each
level, independently of the user-supplied quals. When RTEs are
later discovered which have securityQuals populated, they are turned
into subquery RTEs which are marked as security_barrier to prevent
any user-supplied quals being pushed down (modulo LEAKPROOF quals).
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Craig Ringer, Simon Riggs, KaiGai Kohei
Previously, unless all columns were auto-updateable, we wouldn't
inserts, updates, or deletes, or at least not without a rule or trigger;
now, we'll allow inserts and updates that target only the auto-updateable
columns, and deletes even if there are no auto-updateable columns at
all provided the view definition is otherwise suitable.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Marko Tiikkaja
For simple views which are automatically updatable, this patch allows
the user to specify what level of checking should be done on records
being inserted or updated. For 'LOCAL CHECK', new tuples are validated
against the conditionals of the view they are being inserted into, while
for 'CASCADED CHECK' the new tuples are validated against the
conditionals for all views involved (from the top down).
This option is part of the SQL specification.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Pavel Stehule
An INSERT into such a view should work just like an INSERT into its base
table, ie the insertion should go directly into that table ... not be
duplicated into each child table, as was happening before, per bug #8275
from Rushabh Lathia. On the other hand, the current behavior for
UPDATE/DELETE seems reasonable: the update/delete traverses the child
tables, or not, depending on whether the view specifies ONLY or not.
Add some regression tests covering this area.
Dean Rasheed
This patch makes "simple" views automatically updatable, without the need
to create either INSTEAD OF triggers or INSTEAD rules. "Simple" views
are those classified as updatable according to SQL-92 rules. The rewriter
transforms INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE commands on such views directly into an
equivalent command on the underlying table, which will generally have
noticeably better performance than is possible with either triggers or
user-written rules. A view that has INSTEAD OF triggers or INSTEAD rules
continues to operate the same as before.
For the moment, security_barrier views are not considered simple.
Also, we do not support WITH CHECK OPTION. These features may be
added in future.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Amit Kapila
Dean Rasheed
Tom Lane
Andrew Gierth
Robert Haas
Peter Eisentraut
Stephen Frost
Andres Freund