as determined by include-what-you-use (IWYU)
While IWYU also suggests to *add* a bunch of #include's (which is its
main purpose), this patch does not do that. In some cases, a more
specific #include replaces another less specific one.
Some manual adjustments of the automatic result:
- IWYU currently doesn't know about includes that provide global
variable declarations (like -Wmissing-variable-declarations), so
those includes are being kept manually.
- All includes for port(ability) headers are being kept for now, to
play it safe.
- No changes of catalog/pg_foo.h to catalog/pg_foo_d.h, to keep the
patch from exploding in size.
Note that this patch touches just *.c files, so nothing declared in
header files changes in hidden ways.
As a small example, in src/backend/access/transam/rmgr.c, some IWYU
pragma annotations are added to handle a special case there.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/af837490-6b2f-46df-ba05-37ea6a6653fc%40eisentraut.org
This commit fixes failures with "tuple already updated by self" when
listing twice the same role and in a DROP ROLE query.
This is an oversight in 6566133c5f, that has introduced a two-phase
logic in DropRole() where dependencies of all the roles to drop are
removed in a first phase, with the roles themselves removed from
pg_authid in a second phase.
The code is simplified to not rely on a List of ObjectAddress built in
the first phase used to remove the pg_authid entries in the second
phase, switching to a list of OIDs. Duplicated OIDs can be simply
avoided in the first phase thanks to that. Using ObjectAddress was not
necessary for the roles as they are not used for anything specific to
dependency.c, building all the ObjectAddress in the List with
AuthIdRelationId as class ID.
In 15 and older versions, where a single phase is used, DROP ROLE with
duplicated role names would fail on "role \"blah\" does not exist" for
the second entry after the CCI() done by the first deletion. This is
not really incorrect, but it does not seem worth changing based on a
lack of complaints.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin
Reviewed-by: Tender Wang
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18310-1eb233c5908189c8@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 16
This commit adds some notes about the inability to remove superuser
privileges from the bootstrap superuser. This has been blocked
since commit e530be2c5c, but it wasn't intended be a supported
feature before that, either.
In passing, change "bootstrap user" to "bootstrap superuser" in a
couple places.
Author: Yurii Rashkovskii
Reviewed-by: Vignesh C, David G. Johnston
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BRLCQzSx_eTC2Fch0EzeNHD3zFUcPvBYOoB%2BpPScFLch1DEQw%40mail.gmail.com
Since C99, there can be a trailing comma after the last value in an
enum definition. A lot of new code has been introducing this style on
the fly. Some new patches are now taking an inconsistent approach to
this. Some add the last comma on the fly if they add a new last
value, some are trying to preserve the existing style in each place,
some are even dropping the last comma if there was one. We could
nudge this all in a consistent direction if we just add the trailing
commas everywhere once.
I omitted a few places where there was a fixed "last" value that will
always stay last. I also skipped the header files of libpq and ecpg,
in case people want to use those with older compilers. There were
also a small number of cases where the enum type wasn't used anywhere
(but the enum values were), which ended up confusing pgindent a bit,
so I left those alone.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/386f8c45-c8ac-4681-8add-e3b0852c1620%40eisentraut.org
Based on how postgres.h foes the Oid <-> Datum conversion, there is no
existing bugs but let's be consistent. 17 spots have been noticed as
incorrectly passing down Oids rather than Datums. Aleksander got one,
Zhang two and I the rest.
Author: Michael Paquier, Aleksander Alekseev, Zhang Mingli
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZLUhqsqQN1MOaxdw@paquier.xyz
Run pgindent, pgperltidy, and reformat-dat-files.
This set of diffs is a bit larger than typical. We've updated to
pg_bsd_indent 2.1.2, which properly indents variable declarations that
have multi-line initialization expressions (the continuation lines are
now indented one tab stop). We've also updated to perltidy version
20230309 and changed some of its settings, which reduces its desire to
add whitespace to lines to make assignments etc. line up. Going
forward, that should make for fewer random-seeming changes to existing
code.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230428092545.qfb3y5wcu4cm75ur@alvherre.pgsql
Mainly move some detail from errmsg to errdetail, remove explicit
mention of superuser where appropriate, since that is implied in most
permission checks, and make messages more uniform.
Author: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230316234701.GA903298@nathanxps13
Previously, a CREATEROLE user without SUPERUSER could not alter
REPLICATION users in any way, and could not set the BYPASSRLS
attribute. However, they could manipulate the CREATEDB property
even if they themselves did not possess it.
With this change, a CREATEROLE user without SUPERUSER can set or
clear the REPLICATION, BYPASSRLS, or CREATEDB property on a new
role or a role that they have rights to manage if and only if
that property is set for their own role.
This implements the standard idea that you can't give permissions
you don't have (but you can give the ones you do have). We might
in the future want to provide more powerful ways to constrain
what a CREATEROLE user can do - for example, to limit whether
CONNECTION LIMIT can be set or the values to which it can be set -
but that is left as future work.
Patch by me, reviewed by Nathan Bossart, Tushar Ahuja, and Neha
Sharma.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobX=LHg_J5aT=0pi9gJy=JdtrUVGAu0zhr-i5v5nNbJDg@mail.gmail.com
Can be set to the empty string, or to either or both of "set" or
"inherit". If set to a non-empty value, a non-superuser who creates
a role (necessarily by relying up the CREATEROLE privilege) will
grant that role back to themselves with the specified options.
This isn't a security feature, because the grant that this feature
triggers can also be performed explicitly. Instead, it's a user experience
feature. A superuser would necessarily inherit the privileges of any
created role and be able to access all such roles via SET ROLE;
with this patch, you can configure createrole_self_grant = 'set, inherit'
to provide a similar experience for a user who has CREATEROLE but not
SUPERUSER.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobN59ct+Emmz6ig1Nua2Q-_o=r6DSD98KfU53kctq_kQw@mail.gmail.com
Previously, CREATEROLE users were permitted to make nearly arbitrary
changes to roles that they didn't create, with certain exceptions,
particularly superuser roles. Instead, allow CREATEROLE users to make such
changes to roles for which they possess ADMIN OPTION, and to
grant membership only in roles for which they possess ADMIN OPTION.
When a CREATEROLE user who is not a superuser creates a role, grant
ADMIN OPTION on the newly-created role to the creator, so that they
can administer roles they create or for which they have been given
privileges.
With these changes, CREATEROLE users still have very significant
powers that unprivileged users do not receive: they can alter, rename,
drop, comment on, change the password for, and change security labels
on roles. However, they can now do these things only for roles for
which they possess appropriate privileges, rather than all
non-superuser roles; moreover, they cannot grant a role such as
pg_execute_server_program unless they themselves possess it.
Patch by me, reviewed by Mark Dilger.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobN59ct+Emmz6ig1Nua2Q-_o=r6DSD98KfU53kctq_kQw@mail.gmail.com
This is just refactoring; there should be no functonal change. It
might have the effect of slightly reducing the number of calls to
GetUserId(), but the real point is to facilitate future work in
this area.
Patch by me, reviewed by Mark Dilger.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobFzTLkLwOquFrAcdsWBsOWDr-_H-jw+qBvfx-wSzMwDA@mail.gmail.com
Instead of having checks in AddRoleMems() and DelRoleMems(), have
the callers perform checks where it's required. In some cases it
isn't, either because the caller has already performed a check for
the same condition, or because the check couldn't possibly fail.
The "Skip permission check if nothing to do" check in each of
AddRoleMems() and DelRoleMems() is pointless. Some call sites
can't pass an empty list. Others can, but in those cases, the role
being modified is one that the current user has just created.
Therefore, they must have permission to modify it, and so no
permission check is required at all.
This patch is intended to have no user-visible consequences. It is
intended to simplify future work in this area.
Patch by me, reviewed by Mark Dilger.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobFzTLkLwOquFrAcdsWBsOWDr-_H-jw+qBvfx-wSzMwDA@mail.gmail.com
Similar to how the INHERIT option controls whether or not the
permissions of the granted role are automatically available to the
grantee, the new SET permission controls whether or not the grantee
may use the SET ROLE command to assume the privileges of the granted
role.
In addition, the new SET permission controls whether or not it
is possible to transfer ownership of objects to the target role
or to create new objects owned by the target role using commands
such as CREATE DATABASE .. OWNER. We could alternatively have made
this controlled by the INHERIT option, or allow it when either
option is given. An advantage of this approach is that if you
are granted a predefined role with INHERIT TRUE, SET FALSE, you
can't go and create objects owned by that role.
The underlying theory here is that the ability to create objects
as a target role is not a privilege per se, and thus does not
depend on whether you inherit the target role's privileges. However,
it's surely something you could do anyway if you could SET ROLE
to the target role, and thus making it contingent on whether you
have that ability is reasonable.
Design review by Nathan Bossat, Wolfgang Walther, Jeff Davis,
Peter Eisentraut, and Stephen Frost.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmob+zDSRS6JXYrgq0NWdzCXuTNzT5eK54Dn2hhgt17nm8A@mail.gmail.com
Instead of dozens of mostly-duplicate pg_foo_ownercheck() functions,
write one common function object_ownercheck() that can handle almost
all of them. We already have all the information we need, such as
which system catalog corresponds to which catalog table and which
column is the owner column.
Reviewed-by: Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/95c30f96-4060-2f48-98b5-a4392d3b6066@enterprisedb.com
This prevents marking the argument string for translation for gettext,
and it also prevents the given string (which is already translated) from
being translated at runtime.
Also, mark the strings used as arguments to check_rolespec_name for
translation.
Backpatch all the way back as appropriate. None of this is caught by
any tests (necessarily so), so I verified it manually.
The GRANT statement can now specify WITH INHERIT TRUE or WITH
INHERIT FALSE to control whether the member inherits the granted
role's permissions. For symmetry, you can now likewise write
WITH ADMIN TRUE or WITH ADMIN FALSE to turn ADMIN OPTION on or off.
If a GRANT does not specify WITH INHERIT, the behavior based on
whether the member role is marked INHERIT or NOINHERIT. This means
that if all roles are marked INHERIT or NOINHERIT before any role
grants are performed, the behavior is identical to what we had before;
otherwise, it's different, because ALTER ROLE [NO]INHERIT now only
changes the default behavior of future grants, and has no effect on
existing ones.
Patch by me. Reviewed and testing by Nathan Bossart and Tushar Ahuja,
with design-level comments from various others.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoa5Sf4PiWrfxA=sGzDKg0Ojo3dADw=wAHOhR9dggV=RmQ@mail.gmail.com
Previously, membership of role A in role B could be recorded in the
catalog tables only once. This meant that a new grant of role A to
role B would overwrite the previous grant. For other object types, a
new grant of permission on an object - in this case role A - exists
along side the existing grant provided that the grantor is different.
Either grant can be revoked independently of the other, and
permissions remain so long as at least one grant remains. Make role
grants work similarly.
Previously, when granting membership in a role, the superuser could
specify any role whatsoever as the grantor, but for other object types,
the grantor of record must be either the owner of the object, or a
role that currently has privileges to perform a similar GRANT.
Implement the same scheme for role grants, treating the bootstrap
superuser as the role owner since roles do not have owners. This means
that attempting to revoke a grant, or admin option on a grant, can now
fail if there are dependent privileges, and that CASCADE can be used
to revoke these. It also means that you can't grant ADMIN OPTION on
a role back to a user who granted it directly or indirectly to you,
similar to how you can't give WITH GRANT OPTION on a privilege back
to a role which granted it directly or indirectly to you.
Previously, only the superuser could specify GRANTED BY with a user
other than the current user. Relax that rule to allow the grantor
to be any role whose privileges the current user posseses. This
doesn't improve compatibility with what we do for other object types,
where support for GRANTED BY is entirely vestigial, but it makes this
feature more usable and seems to make sense to change at the same time
we're changing related behaviors.
Along the way, fix "ALTER GROUP group_name ADD USER user_name" to
require the same privileges as "GRANT group_name TO user_name".
Previously, CREATEROLE privileges were sufficient for either, but
only the former form was permissible with ADMIN OPTION on the role.
Now, either CREATEROLE or ADMIN OPTION on the role suffices for
either spelling.
Patch by me, reviewed by Stephen Frost.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoaFr-RZeQ+WoQ5nKPv97oT9+aDgK_a5+qWHSgbDsMp1Vg@mail.gmail.com
Previously, "GRANT foo TO bar" or "GRANT foo TO bar GRANTED BY baz"
would record the OID of the grantor in pg_auth_members.grantor, but
that role could later be dropped without modifying or removing the
pg_auth_members record. That's not great, because we typically try
to avoid dangling references in catalog data.
Now, a role grant depends on the grantor, and the grantor can't be
dropped without removing the grant or changing the grantor. "DROP
OWNED BY" will remove the grant, just as it does for other kinds of
privileges. "REASSIGN OWNED BY" will not, again just like what we do
in other cases involving privileges.
pg_auth_members now has an OID column, because that is needed in order
for dependencies to work. It also now has an index on the grantor
column, because otherwise dropping a role would require a sequential
scan of the entire table to see whether the role's OID is in use as
a grantor. That probably wouldn't be too large a problem in practice,
but it seems better to have an index just in case.
A follow-on patch is planned with the goal of more thoroughly
rationalizing the behavior of role grants. This patch is just trying
to do enough to make sure that the data we store in the catalogs is at
some basic level valid.
Patch by me, reviewed by Stephen Frost
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoaFr-RZeQ+WoQ5nKPv97oT9+aDgK_a5+qWHSgbDsMp1Vg@mail.gmail.com
The BoolGetDatum() call ended up in the wrong place. It should be
applied when we, err, want to convert a bool to a datum.
Thanks to Tom Lane for noticing this.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/2511599.1658861964@sss.pgh.pa.us
A bootstrap user who is not a superuser will still own many
important system objects, such as the pg_catalog schema, that
will likely allow that user to regain superuser status. Therefore,
allowing the superuser property to be removed from the superuser
creates a false perception of security where none exists.
Although removing superuser from the bootstrap user is also a bad idea
and should be considered unsupported in all released versions, no
back-patch, as this is a behavior change.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZirCwArJms_fgvLBFrC6b=HdxmG7iAhv+kt_=NBA7tEw@mail.gmail.com
This replaces all MemSet() calls with struct initialization where that
is easily and obviously possible. (For example, some cases have to
worry about padding bits, so I left those.)
(The same could be done with appropriate memset() calls, but this
patch is part of an effort to phase out MemSet(), so it doesn't touch
memset() calls.)
Reviewed-by: Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9847b13c-b785-f4e2-75c3-12ec77a3b05c@enterprisedb.com
Commit f9fd176461 effectively gave
every role ADMIN OPTION on itself. However, this appears to be
something that happened accidentally as a result of refactoring
work rather than an intentional decision. Almost a decade later,
it was discovered that this was a security vulnerability. As a
result, commit fea164a72a restricted
this implicit ADMIN OPTION privilege to be exercisable only when
the role being administered is the same as the session user and
when no security-restricted operation is in progress. That
commit also documented the existence of this implicit privilege
for what seems to be the first time.
The effect of the privilege is to allow a login role to grant
the privileges of that role, and optionally ADMIN OPTION on it,
to some other role. That's an unusual thing to do, because generally
membership is granted in roles used as groups, rather than roles
used as users. Therefore, it does not seem likely that removing
the privilege will break things for many PostgreSQL users.
However, it will make it easier to reason about the permissions
system. This is the only case where a user who has not been given any
special permission (superuser, or ADMIN OPTION on some role) can
modify role membership, so removing it makes things more consistent.
For example, if a superuser sets up role A and B and grants A to B
but no other privileges to anyone, she can now be sure that no one
else will be able to revoke that grant. Without this change, that
would have been true only if A was a non-login role.
Patch by me. Reviewed by Tom Lane and Stephen Frost.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoawdt03kbA+dNyBcNWJpRxu0f4X=69Y3+DkXXZqmwMDLg@mail.gmail.com
Before, SQL-level boolean constants were represented by a string with
a cast, and internal Boolean values in DDL commands were usually
represented by Integer nodes. This takes the place of both of these
uses, making the intent clearer and having some amount of type safety.
Reviewed-by: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/8c1a2e37-c68d-703c-5a83-7a6077f4f997@enterprisedb.com
Get rid of the three-valued logic for the Boolean variables to track
whether the value was been specified and what the new value should be.
Instead, we can use the "dfoo" variables to determine whether the
value was specified and should be applied. This was already done in
some cases, so this makes this more uniform and removes one layer of
indirection.
Reviewed-by: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/8c1a2e37-c68d-703c-5a83-7a6077f4f997@enterprisedb.com
The existing cryptohash facility was causing problems in some code paths
related to MD5 (frontend and backend) that relied on the fact that the
only type of error that could happen would be an OOM, as the MD5
implementation used in PostgreSQL ~13 (the in-core implementation is
used when compiling with or without OpenSSL in those older versions),
could fail only under this circumstance.
The new cryptohash facilities can fail for reasons other than OOMs, like
attempting MD5 when FIPS is enabled (upstream OpenSSL allows that up to
1.0.2, Fedora and Photon patch OpenSSL 1.1.1 to allow that), so this
would cause incorrect reports to show up.
This commit extends the cryptohash APIs so as callers of those routines
can fetch more context when an error happens, by using a new routine
called pg_cryptohash_error(). The error states are stored within each
implementation's internal context data, so as it is possible to extend
the logic depending on what's suited for an implementation. The default
implementation requires few error states, but OpenSSL could report
various issues depending on its internal state so more is needed in
cryptohash_openssl.c, and the code is shaped so as we are always able to
grab the necessary information.
The core code is changed to adapt to the new error routine, painting
more "const" across the call stack where the static errors are stored,
particularly in authentication code paths on variables that provide
log details. This way, any future changes would warn if attempting to
free these strings. The MD5 authentication code was also a bit blurry
about the handling of "logdetail" (LOG sent to the postmaster), so
improve the comments related that, while on it.
The origin of the problem is 87ae969, that introduced the centralized
cryptohash facility. Extra changes are done for pgcrypto in v14 for the
non-OpenSSL code path to cope with the improvements done by this
commit.
Reported-by: Michael Mühlbeyer
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/89B7F072-5BBE-4C92-903E-D83E865D9367@trivadis.com
Backpatch-through: 14
The reverted commit attempted to fix SQL specification compliance for
the cases which 6aaaa76bb left. This however broke existing behavior
which takes precedence over spec compliance so revert. The introduced
tests are left after the revert since the codepath isn't well covered.
Per bug report 17346. Backpatch down to 14 where it was introduced.
Reported-by: Andrew Bille <andrewbille@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17346-f72b28bd1a341060@postgresql.org
Commit 6aaaa76bb added support for the GRANTED BY clause in GRANT and
REVOKE statements, but missed adding support for checking the role in
the REVOKE ROLE case. Fix by checking that the parsed role matches the
CURRENT_ROLE/CURRENT_USER requirement, and also add some tests for it.
Backpatch to v14 where GRANTED BY support was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/B7F6699A-A984-4943-B9BF-CEB84C003527@yesql.se
Backpatch-through: 14
When reporting "conflicting or redundant options" errors, try to
ensure that errposition() is used, to help the user identify the
offending option.
Formerly, errposition() was invoked in less than 60% of cases. This
patch raises that to over 90%, but there remain a few places where the
ParseState is not readily available. Using errdetail() might improve
the error in such cases, but that is left as a task for the future.
Additionally, since this error is thrown from over 100 places in the
codebase, introduce a dedicated function to throw it, reducing code
duplication.
Extracted from a slightly larger patch by Vignesh C. Reviewed by
Bharath Rupireddy, Alvaro Herrera, Dilip Kumar, Hou Zhijie, Peter
Smith, Daniel Gustafsson, Julien Rouhaud and me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALDaNm33FFSS5tVyvmkoK2cCMuDVxcui=gFrjti9ROfynqSAGA@mail.gmail.com
Commit c9c41c7a33 used two different
naming patterns. Standardize on the majority pattern, which was the
only pattern in the last reviewed version of that commit.
Membership consists, implicitly, of the current database owner. Expect
use in template databases. Once pg_database_owner has rights within a
template, each owner of a database instantiated from that template will
exercise those rights.
Reviewed by John Naylor.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20201228043148.GA1053024@rfd.leadboat.com
The intention in commit 491c029db was to require superuserness to
change the BYPASSRLS property, but the actual effect of the coding
in AlterRole() was to require superuserness to change anything at all
about a BYPASSRLS role. Other properties of a BYPASSRLS role should
be changeable under the same rules as for a normal role, though.
Fix that, and also take care of some documentation omissions related
to BYPASSRLS and REPLICATION role properties.
Tom Lane and Stephen Frost, per bug report from Wolfgang Walther.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/a5548a9f-89ee-3167-129d-162b5985fcf8@technowledgy.de
CreateRole() was passing a Value node, not a RoleSpec node, for the
newly-created role name when adding the role as a member of existing
roles for the IN ROLE syntax.
This mistake went unnoticed because the node in question is used only
for error messages and is not accessed on non-error paths.
In older pg versions (such as 9.5 where this was found), this results
in an "unexpected node type" error in place of the real error. That
node type check was removed at some point, after which the code would
accidentally fail to fail on 64-bit platforms (on which accessing the
Value node as if it were a RoleSpec would be mostly harmless) or give
an "unexpected role type" error on 32-bit platforms.
Fix the code to pass the correct node type, and add an lfirst_node
assertion just in case.
Per report on irc from user m1chelangelo.
Backpatch all the way, because this error has been around for a long
time.
This follows multiple complains from Peter Geoghegan, Andres Freund and
Alvaro Herrera that this issue ought to be dug more before actually
happening, if it happens.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191226144606.GA5659@alvherre.pgsql
The following renaming is done so as source files related to index
access methods are more consistent with table access methods (the
original names used for index AMs ware too generic, and could be
confused as including features related to table AMs):
- amapi.h -> indexam.h.
- amapi.c -> indexamapi.c. Here we have an equivalent with
backend/access/table/tableamapi.c.
- amvalidate.c -> indexamvalidate.c.
- amvalidate.h -> indexamvalidate.h.
- genam.c -> indexgenam.c.
- genam.h -> indexgenam.h.
This has been discussed during the development of v12 when table AM was
worked on, but the renaming never happened.
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Fabien Coelho, Julien Rouhaud
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191223053434.GF34339@paquier.xyz
In commit 18555b132 we tentatively established a rule that regression
tests should use names containing "regression" for databases, and names
starting with "regress_" for all other globally-visible object names, so
as to circumscribe the side-effects that "make installcheck" could have
on an existing installation.
This commit adds a simple enforcement mechanism for that rule: if the code
is compiled with ENFORCE_REGRESSION_TEST_NAME_RESTRICTIONS defined, it
will emit a warning (not an error) whenever a database, role, tablespace,
subscription, or replication origin name is created that doesn't obey the
rule. Running one or more buildfarm members with that symbol defined
should be enough to catch new violations, at least in the regular
regression tests. Most TAP tests wouldn't notice such warnings, but
that's actually fine because TAP tests don't execute against an existing
server anyway.
Since it's already the case that running src/test/modules/ tests in
installcheck mode is deprecated, we can use that as a home for tests
that seem unsafe to run against an existing server, such as tests that
might have side-effects on existing roles. Document that (though this
commit doesn't in itself make it any less safe than before).
Update regress.sgml to define these restrictions more clearly, and
to clean up assorted lack-of-up-to-date-ness in its descriptions of
the available regression tests.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16638.1468620817@sss.pgh.pa.us
Peter Eisentraut
Michael Paquier
Nathan Bossart
Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane
Robert Haas
Alvaro Herrera
Daniel Gustafsson
Dean Rasheed
Noah Misch
Stephen Frost
Andrew Gierth