As usual, the release notes for other branches will be made by cutting
these down, but put them up for community review first. Note there
are some entries that really only apply to pre-9.6 branches.
When the checkpointer writes the shutdown checkpoint, it checks
afterwards whether any WAL has been written since it started and throws
a PANIC if so. At that point, only walsenders are still active, so one
might think this could not happen, but walsenders can also generate WAL,
for instance in BASE_BACKUP and certain variants of
CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT. So they can trigger this panic if such a
command is run while the shutdown checkpoint is being written.
To fix this, divide the walsender shutdown into two phases. First, the
postmaster sends a SIGUSR2 signal to all walsenders. The walsenders
then put themselves into the "stopping" state. In this state, they
reject any new commands. (For simplicity, we reject all new commands,
so that in the future we do not have to track meticulously which
commands might generate WAL.) The checkpointer waits for all walsenders
to reach this state before proceeding with the shutdown checkpoint.
After the shutdown checkpoint is done, the postmaster sends
SIGINT (previously unused) to the walsenders. This triggers the
existing shutdown behavior of sending out the shutdown checkpoint record
and then terminating.
Author: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
password_encryption was a boolean before version 10, so cope with "on" and
"off".
Also, change the behavior with "plain", to treat it the same as "md5".
We're discussing removing the password_encryption='plain' option from the
server altogether, which will make this the only reasonable choice, but
even if we kept it, it seems best to never send the password in cleartext.
Move the OWNER and RENAME clauses to the end, so the interesting
functionality is listed first. This is more typical on nearby reference
pages, whereas the previous order was the order in which the clauses
were added.
This goes together with the changes made to enable replication on the
sending side by default (wal_level, max_wal_senders etc) by making the
receiving stadby node also enable it by default.
Huong Dangminh
Even though no actual tuples are ever inserted into a partitioned
table (the actual tuples are in the partitions, not the partitioned
table itself), we still need to have a ResultRelInfo for the
partitioned table, or per-statement triggers won't get fired.
Amit Langote, per a report from Rajkumar Raghuwanshi. Reviewed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6%3DwYospCRY2J4XEFuVy0L41S%3Dfic7rmkbsU-GXhhSbmBg%40mail.gmail.com
Declarative partitioning duplicated the TypedTableElement productions,
evidently to remove the need to specify WITH OPTIONS when creating
partitions. Instead, simply make WITH OPTIONS optional in the
TypedTableElement production and remove all of the duplicate
PartitionElement-related productions. This change simplifies the
syntax and makes WITH OPTIONS optional when adding defaults, constraints
or storage parameters to columns when creating either typed tables or
partitions.
Also update pg_dump to no longer include WITH OPTIONS, since it's not
necessary, and update the documentation to reflect that WITH OPTIONS is
now optional.
There is no need to forbid ALTER TABLE ONLY on partitioned tables,
when no partitions exist yet. This can be handy for users who are
building up their partitioned table independently and will create actual
partitions later.
In addition, this is how pg_dump likes to operate in certain instances.
Author: Amit Langote, with some error message word-smithing by me
The reference "That is the topic of the next section." has been
incorrect since the materialized views documentation got inserted
between the section "rules-views" and "rules-update".
Author: Zertrin <postgres_wiki@zertrin.org>
It doesn't make any immediate difference to PostgreSQL, but might as well
follow the standard, since one exists. (I looked at RFC 5803 earlier, but
didn't fully understand it back then.)
The new format uses Base64 instead of hex to encode StoredKey and
ServerKey, which makes the verifiers slightly smaller. Using the same
encoding for the salt and the keys also means that you only need one
encoder/decoder instead of two. Although we have code in the backend to
do both, we are talking about teaching libpq how to create SCRAM verifiers
for PQencodePassword(), and libpq doesn't currently have any code for hex
encoding.
Bump catversion, because this renders any existing SCRAM verifiers in
pg_authid invalid.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/351ba574-85ea-d9b8-9689-8c928dd0955d@iki.fi
Extended statistics commit 7b504eb282 did not include appropriate
documentation next to where we document regular planner statistics (I
ripped what was submitted before commit and then forgot to put it back),
and while later commit 2686ee1b7c added some material, it structurally
depended on what I had ripped out, so the end result wasn't proper.
Fix those problems by shuffling what was added by 2686ee1b7c and
including some additional material, so that now chapter 14 "Performance
Tips" now describes the types of multivariate statistics we currently
have, and chapter 68 "How the Planner Uses Statistics" shows some
examples. The new text should be more in line with previous material,
in (hopefully) the appropriate depth.
While at it, fix a small bug in pg_statistic_ext docs: one column was
listed in the wrong spot.
Commit 05cd12ed5 ("pg_ctl: Change default to wait for all actions")
was a tad sloppy about updating the documentation to match. The
documentation was also sorely in need of a copy-editing pass, having
been adjusted at different times by different people who took little
care to maintain consistency of style.
Give a more specific error message than "xyz is not a table".
Also document in CREATE PUBLICATION which kinds of relations are not
supported.
based on patch by Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Per discussion, plain "scram" is confusing because we actually implement
SCRAM-SHA-256 rather than the original SCRAM that uses SHA-1 as the hash
algorithm. If we add support for SCRAM-SHA-512 or some other mechanism in
the SCRAM family in the future, that would become even more confusing.
Most of the internal files and functions still use just "scram" as a
shorthand for SCRMA-SHA-256, but I did change PASSWORD_TYPE_SCRAM to
PASSWORD_TYPE_SCRAM_SHA_256, as that could potentially be used by 3rd
party extensions that hook into the password-check hook.
Michael Paquier did this in an earlier version of the SCRAM patch set
already, but I didn't include that in the version that was committed.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/fde71ff1-5858-90c8-99a9-1c2427e7bafb@iki.fi
Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera
Heikki Linnakangas
Magnus Hagander
Robert Haas
Stephen Frost
Fujii Masao
Andrew Dunstan