In one or two places it seemed reasonable to modify the example so as
to shorten its output slightly; but for the most part I just added a
&zwsp; after 67 characters, which is the most we can fit on a line
of monospace text in A4 format.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/6916.1589146280@sss.pgh.pa.us
I concluded that we really just ought to force all tables in PDF output
to default to "left" alignment (instead of "justify"); that is what the
HTML toolchain does and that's what most people have been designing the
tables to look good with. There are few if any places where "justify"
produces better-looking output, and there are many where it looks
horrible. So change stylesheet-fo.xsl to make that true.
Also tweak column widths in a few more tables to make them look better
and avoid "exceed the available area" warnings. This commit fixes
basically everything that can be fixed through that approach. The
remaining tables that give warnings either are scheduled for redesign
as per recent discussions, or need a fundamental rethink because they
Just Don't Work in a narrow view.
This patch creates a new extension property, "trusted". An extension
that's marked that way in its control file can be installed by a
non-superuser who has the CREATE privilege on the current database,
even if the extension contains objects that normally would have to be
created by a superuser. The objects within the extension will (by
default) be owned by the bootstrap superuser, but the extension itself
will be owned by the calling user. This allows replicating the old
behavior around trusted procedural languages, without all the
special-case logic in CREATE LANGUAGE. We have, however, chosen to
loosen the rules slightly: formerly, only a database owner could take
advantage of the special case that allowed installation of a trusted
language, but now anyone who has CREATE privilege can do so.
Having done that, we can delete the pg_pltemplate catalog, moving the
knowledge it contained into the extension script files for the various
PLs. This ends up being no change at all for the in-core PLs, but it is
a large step forward for external PLs: they can now have the same ease
of installation as core PLs do. The old "trusted PL" behavior was only
available to PLs that had entries in pg_pltemplate, but now any
extension can be marked trusted if appropriate.
This also removes one of the stumbling blocks for our Python 2 -> 3
migration, since the association of "plpythonu" with Python 2 is no
longer hard-wired into pg_pltemplate's initial contents. Exactly where
we go from here on that front remains to be settled, but one problem
is fixed.
Patch by me, reviewed by Peter Eisentraut, Stephen Frost, and others.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5889.1566415762@sss.pgh.pa.us
Commit 5770172cb0 wrote, incorrectly, that
certain schema usage patterns are secure against CREATEROLE users and
database owners. When an untrusted user is the database owner or holds
CREATEROLE privilege, a query is secure only if its session started with
SELECT pg_catalog.set_config('search_path', '', false) or equivalent.
Back-patch to 9.4 (all supported versions).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191013013512.GC4131753@rfd.leadboat.com
This clarifies more how to use and how to take advantage of constraints
when attaching a new partition.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191028001207.GB23808@telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 10
16828d5 has improved ALTER TABLE so as a column addition does not
require a rewrite for a non-NULL default with constant expressions, but
one spot in the documentation did not get updated consistently.
The documentation also now clarifies the fact that this does not apply
if the expression is volatile, where a table rewrite is still required.
Reported-by: Daniel Westermann
Author: Ian Barwick
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Daniel Westermann
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/DB6PR0902MB2184C7D5645CF15D75EB7957D2CF0@DB6PR0902MB2184.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com
Backpatch-through: 11
A few questionable partitioning designs have been cropping up lately
around the mailing lists. Generally, these cases have been partitioning
using too many partitions which have caused performance or OOM problems for
the users.
Since we have very little else to guide users into good design, here we
add a new section to the partitioning documentation with some best
practise guidelines for good design.
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby, Amit Langote, Alvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f-2rx+E9mG3xrCVHupefMjAp1+tpczQa9SEOZWyU7fjEA@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Continuous operation cannot be achieved without applying this technique,
so it needs to be properly described.
Author: Álvaro Herrera
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8756.1556302759@sss.pgh.pa.us
This got forgotten in f56f8f which has added foreign key support for
partitioned tables. In passing, add a mention about caveats applying to
tables partitioned using inheritance regarding indexes and foreign keys.
Author: Paul A Jungwirth
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+renyUuSmYgmZjKc_DfUNVZ0uttF91-FwhDVW3F7WEPj0jL5w@mail.gmail.com
The interaction of these parameters was a bit confused/confusing,
and in fact v11 entirely misses the opportunity to apply partition
constraints when a partition is accessed directly (rather than
indirectly from its parent).
In HEAD, establish the principle that enable_partition_pruning controls
partition pruning and nothing else. When accessing a partition via its
parent, we do partition pruning (if enabled by enable_partition_pruning)
and then there is no need to consider partition constraints in the
constraint_exclusion logic. When accessing a partition directly, its
partition constraints are applied by the constraint_exclusion logic,
only if constraint_exclusion = on.
In v11, we can't have such a clean division of these GUCs' effects,
partly because we don't want to break compatibility too much in a
released branch, and partly because the clean coding requires
inheritance_planner to have applied partition pruning to a partitioned
target table, which it doesn't in v11. However, we can tweak things
enough to cover the missed case, which seems like a good idea since
it's potentially a performance regression from v10. This patch keeps
v11's previous behavior in which enable_partition_pruning overrides
constraint_exclusion for an inherited target table, though.
In HEAD, also teach relation_excluded_by_constraints that it's okay to use
inheritable constraints when trying to prune a traditional inheritance
tree. This might not be thought worthy of effort given that that feature
is semi-deprecated now, but we have enough infrastructure that it only
takes a couple more lines of code to do it correctly.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9813f079-f16b-61c8-9ab7-4363cab28d80@lab.ntt.co.jp
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/29069.1555970894@sss.pgh.pa.us
This is an SQL-standard feature that allows creating columns that are
computed from expressions rather than assigned, similar to a view or
materialized view but on a column basis.
This implements one kind of generated column: stored (computed on
write). Another kind, virtual (computed on read), is planned for the
future, and some room is left for it.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Reviewed-by: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/b151f851-4019-bdb1-699e-ebab07d2f40a@2ndquadrant.com
1. The PARTITION OF clause of CREATE FOREIGN TABLE was not explained in
the CREATE FOREIGN TABLE reference page. Add it.
(Postgres 10 onwards)
2. The limitation that tuple routing cannot target partitions that are
foreign tables was not documented clearly enough. Improve wording.
(Postgres 10 onwards)
3. The UPDATE tuple re-routing concurrency behavior was explained in
the DDL chapter, which doesn't seem the right place. Move it to the
UPDATE reference page instead. (Postgres 11 onwards).
Authors: Amit Langote, David Rowley.
Reviewed-by: Etsuro Fujita.
Reported-by: Derek Hans
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGrP7a3Xc1Qy_B2WJcgAD8uQTS_NDcJn06O5mtS_Ne1nYhBsyw@mail.gmail.com
We still require AccessExclusiveLock on the partition itself, because
otherwise an insert that violates the newly-imposed partition
constraint could be in progress at the same time that we're changing
that constraint; only the lock level on the parent relation is
weakened.
To make this safe, we have to cope with (at least) three separate
problems. First, relevant DDL might commit while we're in the process
of building a PartitionDesc. If so, find_inheritance_children() might
see a new partition while the RELOID system cache still has the old
partition bound cached, and even before invalidation messages have
been queued. To fix that, if we see that the pg_class tuple seems to
be missing or to have a null relpartbound, refetch the value directly
from the table. We can't get the wrong value, because DETACH PARTITION
still requires AccessExclusiveLock throughout; if we ever want to
change that, this will need more thought. In testing, I found it quite
difficult to hit even the null-relpartbound case; the race condition
is extremely tight, but the theoretical risk is there.
Second, successive calls to RelationGetPartitionDesc might not return
the same answer. The query planner will get confused if lookup up the
PartitionDesc for a particular relation does not return a consistent
answer for the entire duration of query planning. Likewise, query
execution will get confused if the same relation seems to have a
different PartitionDesc at different times. Invent a new
PartitionDirectory concept and use it to ensure consistency. This
ensures that a single invocation of either the planner or the executor
sees the same view of the PartitionDesc from beginning to end, but it
does not guarantee that the planner and the executor see the same
view. Since this allows pointers to old PartitionDesc entries to
survive even after a relcache rebuild, also postpone removing the old
PartitionDesc entry until we're certain no one is using it.
For the most part, it seems to be OK for the planner and executor to
have different views of the PartitionDesc, because the executor will
just ignore any concurrently added partitions which were unknown at
plan time; those partitions won't be part of the inheritance
expansion, but invalidation messages will trigger replanning at some
point. Normally, this happens by the time the very next command is
executed, but if the next command acquires no locks and executes a
prepared query, it can manage not to notice until a new transaction is
started. We might want to tighten that up, but it's material for a
separate patch. There would still be a small window where a query
that started just after an ATTACH PARTITION command committed might
fail to notice its results -- but only if the command starts before
the commit has been acknowledged to the user. All in all, the warts
here around serializability seem small enough to be worth accepting
for the considerable advantage of being able to add partitions without
a full table lock.
Although in general the consequences of new partitions showing up
between planning and execution are limited to the query not noticing
the new partitions, run-time partition pruning will get confused in
that case, so that's the third problem that this patch fixes.
Run-time partition pruning assumes that indexes into the PartitionDesc
are stable between planning and execution. So, add code so that if
new partitions are added between plan time and execution time, the
indexes stored in the subplan_map[] and subpart_map[] arrays within
the plan's PartitionedRelPruneInfo get adjusted accordingly. There
does not seem to be a simple way to generalize this scheme to cope
with partitions that are removed, mostly because they could then get
added back again with different bounds, but it works OK for added
partitions.
This code does not try to ensure that every backend participating in
a parallel query sees the same view of the PartitionDesc. That
currently doesn't matter, because we never pass PartitionDesc
indexes between backends. Each backend will ignore the concurrently
added partitions which it notices, and it doesn't matter if different
backends are ignoring different sets of concurrently added partitions.
If in the future that matters, for example because we allow writes in
parallel query and want all participants to do tuple routing to the same
set of partitions, the PartitionDirectory concept could be improved to
share PartitionDescs across backends. There is a draft patch to
serialize and restore PartitionDescs on the thread where this patch
was discussed, which may be a useful place to start.
Patch by me. Thanks to Alvaro Herrera, David Rowley, Simon Riggs,
Amit Langote, and Michael Paquier for discussion, and to Alvaro
Herrera for some review.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmobt2upbSocvvDej3yzokd7AkiT+PvgFH+a9-5VV1oJNSQ@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZE0r9-cyA-aY6f8WFEROaDLLL7Vf81kZ8MtFCkxpeQSw@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoY13KQZF-=HNTrt9UYWYx3_oYOQpu9ioNT49jGgiDpUEA@mail.gmail.com
The current wording can confuse the reader about constraint exclusion
being available at query execution, but this only applies to partition
pruning.
Reported-by: Shouyu Luo
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Chapman Flack, Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15629-2ef8b22e61f8333f@postgresql.org
In commit f16241bef7, we have changed the behavior for concurrent updates
that move row to a different partition, but forgot to update the docs.
Previously when an UPDATE command causes a row to move from one partition
to another, there is a chance that another concurrent UPDATE or DELETE
misses this row. However, now we raise a serialization failure error in
such a case.
Reported-by: David Rowley
Author: David Rowley and Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 11 where it was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f-iVhGD4-givQWpSROaYvO3c730W8yoRMTF9Gc3craY3w@mail.gmail.com
This restriction is implicit in the check-only-once implementation we use
for table and domain constraints, but it wasn't spelled out anywhere, nor
was there any advice about how to alter a constraint's behavior safely.
Improve that.
I was also dissatisfied with the documentation of ALTER DOMAIN VALIDATE
CONSTRAINT, which entirely failed to explain the use of that feature; and
thence decided that ALTER TABLE VALIDATE CONSTRAINT could be documented
better as well.
Perhaps we should back-patch this, along with the related commit 36d442a25,
but for now I refrained.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/12539.1544107316@sss.pgh.pa.us
Expand section 5.6 "Privileges" to include the full definition of
each privilege type, and an explanation of aclitem privilege displays,
along with some helpful summary tables. Most of this material came
out of the GRANT reference page, although some of it is new.
Adjust a bunch of links that were pointing to GRANT to point to 5.6.
Fabien Coelho and Tom Lane, reviewed by Bradley DeJong
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/alpine.DEB.2.21.1807311735200.20743@lancre
Previously tables declared WITH OIDS, including a significant fraction
of the catalog tables, stored the oid column not as a normal column,
but as part of the tuple header.
This special column was not shown by default, which was somewhat odd,
as it's often (consider e.g. pg_class.oid) one of the more important
parts of a row. Neither pg_dump nor COPY included the contents of the
oid column by default.
The fact that the oid column was not an ordinary column necessitated a
significant amount of special case code to support oid columns. That
already was painful for the existing, but upcoming work aiming to make
table storage pluggable, would have required expanding and duplicating
that "specialness" significantly.
WITH OIDS has been deprecated since 2005 (commit ff02d0a05280e0).
Remove it.
Removing includes:
- CREATE TABLE and ALTER TABLE syntax for declaring the table to be
WITH OIDS has been removed (WITH (oids[ = true]) will error out)
- pg_dump does not support dumping tables declared WITH OIDS and will
issue a warning when dumping one (and ignore the oid column).
- restoring an pg_dump archive with pg_restore will warn when
restoring a table with oid contents (and ignore the oid column)
- COPY will refuse to load binary dump that includes oids.
- pg_upgrade will error out when encountering tables declared WITH
OIDS, they have to be altered to remove the oid column first.
- Functionality to access the oid of the last inserted row (like
plpgsql's RESULT_OID, spi's SPI_lastoid, ...) has been removed.
The syntax for declaring a table WITHOUT OIDS (or WITH (oids = false)
for CREATE TABLE) is still supported. While that requires a bit of
support code, it seems unnecessary to break applications / dumps that
do not use oids, and are explicit about not using them.
The biggest user of WITH OID columns was postgres' catalog. This
commit changes all 'magic' oid columns to be columns that are normally
declared and stored. To reduce unnecessary query breakage all the
newly added columns are still named 'oid', even if a table's column
naming scheme would indicate 'reloid' or such. This obviously
requires adapting a lot code, mostly replacing oid access via
HeapTupleGetOid() with access to the underlying Form_pg_*->oid column.
The bootstrap process now assigns oids for all oid columns in
genbki.pl that do not have an explicit value (starting at the largest
oid previously used), only oids assigned later by oids will be above
FirstBootstrapObjectId. As the oid column now is a normal column the
special bootstrap syntax for oids has been removed.
Oids are not automatically assigned during insertion anymore, all
backend code explicitly assigns oids with GetNewOidWithIndex(). For
the rare case that insertions into the catalog via SQL are called for
the new pg_nextoid() function can be used (which only works on catalog
tables).
The fact that oid columns on system tables are now normal columns
means that they will be included in the set of columns expanded
by * (i.e. SELECT * FROM pg_class will now include the table's oid,
previously it did not). It'd not technically be hard to hide oid
column by default, but that'd mean confusing behavior would either
have to be carried forward forever, or it'd cause breakage down the
line.
While it's not unlikely that further adjustments are needed, the
scope/invasiveness of the patch makes it worthwhile to get merge this
now. It's painful to maintain externally, too complicated to commit
after the code code freeze, and a dependency of a number of other
patches.
Catversion bump, for obvious reasons.
Author: Andres Freund, with contributions by John Naylor
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180930034810.ywp2c7awz7opzcfr@alap3.anarazel.de
A note in ddl.sgml used to mention that run-time pruning was only
implemented for Append. When we got MergeAppend support, this was
updated to mention that MergeAppend is supported too. This is
slightly weird as it's not all that obvious what exactly isn't
supported when we mention:
<para>
Both of these behaviors are likely to be changed in a future release
of <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>.
</para>
This patch updates this to mention that ModifyTable is unsupported,
which makes the above fragment make sense again.
Author: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Since procedures are now a different thing from functions, change the
CREATE TRIGGER and CREATE EVENT TRIGGER syntax to use FUNCTION in the
clause that specifies the function. PROCEDURE is still accepted for
compatibility.
pg_dump and ruleutils.c output is not changed yet, because that would
require a change in information_schema.sql and thus a catversion change.
Reported-by: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan S. Katz <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com>
As written, this policy constrained only the post-image not the pre-image
of rows, meaning that users could delete other users' rows or take
ownership of such rows, contrary to what the docs claimed would happen.
We need two separate policies to achieve the documented effect.
While at it, try to explain what's happening a bit more fully.
Per report from Олег Самойлов. Back-patch to 9.5 where this was added.
Thanks to Stephen Frost for off-list discussion.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3298321532002010@sas1-2b3c3045b736.qloud-c.yandex.net
Commit 5770172cb0 documented secure schema
usage, and that advice suffices for using unqualified names securely.
Document, in typeconv-func primarily, the additional issues that arise
with qualified names. Back-patch to 9.3 (all supported versions).
Reviewed by Jonathan S. Katz.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180721012446.GA1840594@rfd.leadboat.com
Prefer to use phrases like "child" instead of "partition" when
describing the legacy inheritance-based partitioning. The word
"partition" now has a fixed meaning for the built-in partitioning, so
keeping it out of the documentation of the old method makes things
clearer.
Author: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Since their introduction, partition trees have been a bit lossy
regarding temporary relations. Inheritance trees respect the following
patterns:
1) a child relation can be temporary if the parent is permanent.
2) a child relation can be temporary if the parent is temporary.
3) a child relation cannot be permanent if the parent is temporary.
4) The use of temporary relations also imply that when both parent and
child need to be from the same sessions.
Partitions share many similar patterns with inheritance, however the
handling of the partition bounds make the situation a bit tricky for
case 1) as the partition code bases a lot of its lookup code upon
PartitionDesc which does not really look after relpersistence. This
causes for example a temporary partition created by session A to be
visible by another session B, preventing this session B to create an
extra partition which overlaps with the temporary one created by A with
a non-intuitive error message. There could be use-cases where mixing
permanent partitioned tables with temporary partitions make sense, but
that would be a new feature. Partitions respect 2), 3) and 4) already.
It is a bit depressing to see those error checks happening in
MergeAttributes() whose purpose is different, but that's left as future
refactoring work.
Back-patch down to 10, which is where partitioning has been introduced,
except that default partitions do not apply there. Documentation also
includes limitations related to the use of temporary tables with
partition trees.
Reported-by: David Rowley
Author: Amit Langote, Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Bapat, Amit Langote, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f94Ojk0og9GMkRHGt8wHTW=ijq5KzJKuoBoqWLwSVwGmw@mail.gmail.com
Explain partition pruning more thoroughly, in a section above the one
that explains constraint exclusion, since the new feature is the one
that will be used more extensively from now on. Move some of the
material from the constraint exclusion subsection to the one on
partition pruning, so that we can explain the legacy method by
explaining the differences with the new one instead of repeating it.
Author: David Rowley, Álvaro Herrera
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, David G. Johnston, Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f8PECxEi1YQ9nhVtshtfOMHUzAMm_Zp4gGCOCnMPjEKJA@mail.gmail.com
This controls both plan-time and execution-time new-style partition
pruning. While finer-grain control is possible (maybe using an enum GUC
instead of boolean), there doesn't seem to be much need for that.
This new parameter controls partition pruning for all queries:
trivially, SELECT queries that affect partitioned tables are naturally
under its control since they are using the new technology. However,
while UPDATE/DELETE queries do not use the new code, we make the new GUC
control their behavior also (stealing control from
constraint_exclusion), because it is more natural, and it leads to a
more natural transition to the future in which those queries will also
use the new pruning code.
Constraint exclusion still controls pruning for regular inheritance
situations (those not involving partitioned tables).
Author: David Rowley
Review: Amit Langote, Ashutosh Bapat, Justin Pryzby, David G. Johnston
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f_0HwsxJG9m+nzU+CizxSdGtfe6iF_ykPYBiYft302DCw@mail.gmail.com
Also enable this for postgres_fdw.
Etsuro Fujita, based on an earlier patch by Amit Langote. The larger
patch series of which this is a part has been reviewed by Amit
Langote, David Fetter, Maksim Milyutin, Álvaro Herrera, Stephen Frost,
and me. Minor documentation changes to the final version by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/29906a26-da12-8c86-4fb9-d8f88442f2b9@lab.ntt.co.jp
Commit eb7ed3f306 enabled unique constraints on partitioned tables,
but one thing that was not working properly is INSERT/ON CONFLICT.
This commit introduces a new node keeps state related to the ON CONFLICT
clause per partition, and fills it when that partition is about to be
used for tuple routing.
Author: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera
Reviewed-by: Etsuro Fujita, Pavan Deolasee
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180228004602.cwdyralmg5ejdqkq@alvherre.pgsql
Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian
Noah Misch
Michael Paquier
Alvaro Herrera
David Rowley
Andres Freund
Robert Haas
Amit Kapila
Peter Eisentraut