We were already raising an error for DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY on a
partitioned table, albeit a different and confusing one:
ERROR: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY must be first action in transaction
Change that to throw a more comprehensible error:
ERROR: cannot drop partitioned index \"%s\" concurrently
Michael Paquier authored the test case for indexes on temporary
partitioned tables.
Backpatch to 11, where indexes on partitioned tables were added.
Reported-by: Jan Mussler <jan.mussler@zalando.de>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16594-d2956ca909585067@postgresql.org
Historically there's been a hard-wired assumption here that no line of
a .pgpass file could be as long as NAMEDATALEN*5 bytes. That's a bit
shaky to start off with, because (a) there's no reason to suppose that
host names fit in NAMEDATALEN, and (b) this figure fails to allow for
backslash escape characters. However, it fails completely if someone
wants to use a very long password, and we're now hearing reports of
people wanting to use "security tokens" that can run up to several
hundred bytes. Another angle is that the file is specified to allow
comment lines, but there's no reason to assume that long comment lines
aren't possible.
Rather than guessing at what might be a more suitable limit, let's
replace the fixed-size buffer with an expansible PQExpBuffer. That
adds one malloc/free cycle to the typical use-case, but that's surely
pretty cheap relative to the I/O this code has to do.
Also, add TAP test cases to exercise this code, because there was no
test coverage before.
This reverts most of commit 2eb3bc588, as there's no longer a need for
a warning message about overlength .pgpass lines. (I kept the explicit
check for comment lines, though.)
In HEAD and v13, this also fixes an oversight in 74a308cf5: there's not
much point in explicit_bzero'ing the line buffer if we only do so in two
of the three exit paths.
Back-patch to all supported branches, except that the test case only
goes back to v10 where src/test/authentication/ was added.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4187382.1598909041@sss.pgh.pa.us
Commit 808e13b282 introduced a few APIs to extend the existing Buffile
interface. In SharedFileSetDeleteOnProcExit, it tries to delete the list
element while traversing the list with 'foreach' construct which makes the
behavior of list traversal unpredictable.
Author: Amit Kapila
Reviewed-by: Dilip Kumar
Tested-by: Dilip Kumar and Neha Sharma
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JhLatVcQ2OvwA_3s0ih6Hx9+kZbq107cXVsSWWukH7vA@mail.gmail.com
Per discussion, we're planning to remove parser support for postfix
operators in order to simplify the grammar. So it behooves us to
put out a deprecation notice at least one release before that.
There is only one built-in postfix operator, ! for factorial.
Label it deprecated in the docs and in pg_description, and adjust
some examples that formerly relied on it. (The sister prefix
operator !! is also deprecated. We don't really have to remove
that one, but since we're suggesting that people use factorial()
instead, it seems better to remove both operators.)
Also state in the CREATE OPERATOR ref page that postfix operators
in general are going away.
Although this changes the initial contents of pg_description,
I did not force a catversion bump; it doesn't seem essential.
In v13, also back-patch 4c5cf5431, so that there's someplace for
the <link>s to point to.
Mark Dilger and John Naylor, with some adjustments by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/BE2DF53D-251A-4E26-972F-930E523580E9@enterprisedb.com
Historically, we've considered the state with relpages and reltuples
both zero as indicating that we do not know the table's tuple density.
This is problematic because it's impossible to distinguish "never yet
vacuumed" from "vacuumed and seen to be empty". In particular, a user
cannot use VACUUM or ANALYZE to override the planner's normal heuristic
that an empty table should not be believed to be empty because it is
probably about to get populated. That heuristic is a good safety
measure, so I don't care to abandon it, but there should be a way to
override it if the table is indeed intended to stay empty.
Hence, represent the initial state of ignorance by setting reltuples
to -1 (relpages is still set to zero), and apply the minimum-ten-pages
heuristic only when reltuples is still -1. If the table is empty,
VACUUM or ANALYZE (but not CREATE INDEX) will override that to
reltuples = relpages = 0, and then we'll plan on that basis.
This requires a bunch of fiddly little changes, but we can get rid of
some ugly kluges that were formerly needed to maintain the old definition.
One notable point is that FDWs' GetForeignRelSize methods will see
baserel->tuples = -1 when no ANALYZE has been done on the foreign table.
That seems like a net improvement, since those methods were formerly
also in the dark about what baserel->tuples = 0 really meant. Still,
it is an API change.
I bumped catversion because code predating this change would get confused
by seeing reltuples = -1.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/F02298E0-6EF4-49A1-BCB6-C484794D9ACC@thebuild.com
A failure when dropping concurrently an index used in a replica identity
could leave in pg_index an index marked as !indisvalid and
indisreplident. Reindexing this index would switch back indisvalid to
true, and if the replica identity of the parent relation was switched to
use a different index, it would be possible to finish with more than one
index marked as indisreplident. If that were to happen, this could mess
up with the relation cache as an incorrect index could be used for the
replica identity.
Indexes marked as invalid are discarded as candidates for the replica
identity, as of RelationGetIndexList(), so similarly to what is done
with indisclustered, resetting indisreplident when the index is marked
as invalid keeps things consistent. REINDEX CONCURRENTLY's swapping
already resets the flag for the old index, while the new index inherits
the value of the old index to-be-dropped, so only DROP INDEX was an
issue.
Even if this is a bug, the sequence able to reproduce a problem requires
a failure while running DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY, something unlikely
going to happen in the field, so no backpatch is done.
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Dolgov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200827025721.GN2017@paquier.xyz
The tables listing all the operator classes available for BRIN, GIN,
GiST and SP-GiST had a confusing format where the same operator could be
listed multiple times, for different data types. This improves the
shape of these tables by adding the types associated to each operator,
for their associated operator class.
Each table included previously the data type that could be used for an
operator class in an extra column. This is removed to reduce the width
of the tables as this is now described within each operator. This also
makes the tables fit better in the PDF documentation.
Reported-by: osdba
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera, Tom Lane, Bruce Momjian
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/38d55061.9604.173b32c60ec.Coremail.mailtch@163.com
When calling cracklib to check the password, the diagnostic from
cracklib was thrown away. This would hide essential information such
as no dictionary being installed. Change this to show the cracklib
error message using errdetail_log().
Reviewed-by: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Reviewed-by: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/f7266133-618a-0adc-52ef-f43c78806b0e%402ndquadrant.com
collectMatchBitmap() needs to re-find the index tuple it was previously
looking at, after transiently dropping lock on the index page it's on.
The tuple should still exist and be at its prior position or somewhere
to the right of that, since ginvacuum never removes tuples but
concurrent insertions could add one. However, there was a thinko in
that logic, to the effect of expecting any inserted tuples to have the
same index "attnum" as what we'd been scanning. Since there's no
physical separation of tuples with different attnums, it's not terribly
hard to devise scenarios where this fails, leading to transient "lost
saved point in index" errors. (While I've duplicated this with manual
testing, it seems impossible to make a reproducible test case with our
available testing technology.)
Fix by just continuing the scan when the attnum doesn't match.
While here, improve the error message used if we do fail, so that it
matches the wording used in btree for a similar case.
collectMatchBitmap()'s posting-tree code path was previously not
exercised at all by our regression tests. While I can't make
a regression test that exhibits the bug, I can at least improve
the code coverage here, so do that. The test case I made for this
is an extension of one added by 4b754d6c1, so it only works in
HEAD and v13; didn't seem worth trying hard to back-patch it.
Per bug #16595 from Jesse Kinkead. This has been broken since
multicolumn capability was added to GIN (commit 27cb66fdf),
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16595-633118be8eef9ce2@postgresql.org
REPLICA IDENTITY USING INDEX behaves the same way as NOTHING if the
associated index is dropped, even if there is a primary key that could
be used as a fallback for the changes generated. There have never been
any tests to cover such scenarios, so this commit closes the gap.
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Masahiko Sawada, Rahila Syed, Euler Taveira
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200522035028.GO2355@paquier.xyz
The additional information added will be an offset number for heap
operations. This information will help us in finding the exact tuple due
to which the error has occurred.
Author: Mahendra Singh Thalor and Amit Kapila
Reviewed-by: Sawada Masahiko, Justin Pryzby and Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKYtNApK488TDF4bMbw+1QH8HJf9cxdNDXquhU50TK5iv_FtCQ@mail.gmail.com
Allow BufFile to support temporary files that can be used by the single
backend when the corresponding files need to be survived across the
transaction and need to be opened and closed multiple times. Such files
need to be created as a member of a SharedFileSet.
Additionally, this commit implements the interface for BufFileTruncate to
allow files to be truncated up to a particular offset and extends the
BufFileSeek API to support the SEEK_END case. This also adds an option to
provide a mode while opening the shared BufFiles instead of always opening
in read-only mode.
These enhancements in BufFile interface are required for the upcoming
patch to allow the replication apply worker, to handle streamed
in-progress transactions.
Author: Dilip Kumar, Amit Kapila
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Tested-by: Neha Sharma
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/688b0b7f-2f6c-d827-c27b-216a8e3ea700@2ndquadrant.com
Previously the codes for pg_backend_memory_contexts were in
src/backend/utils/mmgr/mcxt.c. This commit moves them to
src/backend/utils/adt/mcxtfuncs.c so that mcxt.c basically includes
only the low-level interface for memory contexts.
Author: Atsushi Torikoshi
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Fujii Masao
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200819135545.GC19121@paquier.xyz
pg_backend_memory_contexts view contains some internal information of
memory contexts. Since exposing them to any users by default may cause
security issue, this commit allows only superusers to read this view,
by default, like we do for pg_shmem_allocations view.
Bump catalog version.
Author: Atsushi Torikoshi
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Fujii Masao
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1414992.1597849297@sss.pgh.pa.us
It's a bit inefficient to test if a Bitmapset is empty by counting all the
members and seeing if that number is zero. It's much better just to use
bms_is_empty(). Likewise for checking if there are at least two members,
just use bms_membership(), which does not need to do anything more after
finding two members.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvpvwm_QjbDOb5xga%2BKmX9XkN9xQavNGm3SvDbVnCYOerQ%40mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
All the documentation of index AMs has been using <replaceable> for
local_relopts. This is a structure, so <structname> is a much better
choice.
Alexander has found the inconsistency for btree, while I have spotted
the rest when applying the concept of consistency to the docs.
Author: Alexander Lakhin, Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200822133022.GC24782@paquier.xyz
We were displaying the wrong phase information for 'info' message in the
index clean up phase because we were switching to the previous phase a bit
early. We were also not displaying context information for heap phase
unless the block number is valid which is fine for error cases but for
messages at 'info' or lower error level it appears to be inconsistent with
index phase information.
Reported-by: Sawada Masahiko
Author: Sawada Masahiko
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 13, where it was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+fd4k4HcbhPnCs7paRTw1K-AHin8y4xKomB9Ru0ATw0UeTy2w@mail.gmail.com
The trouble with doing this is that an apparently-constant subquery
output column isn't really constant if it is a grouping column that
appears in only some of the grouping sets. A qual using such a
column would be subject to incorrect const-folding after push-down,
as seen in bug #16585 from Paul Sivash.
To fix, just disable qual pushdown altogether if the sub-query has
nonempty groupingSets. While we could imagine far less restrictive
solutions, there is not much point in working harder right now,
because subquery_planner() won't move HAVING clauses to WHERE within
such a subquery. If the qual stays in HAVING it's not going to be
a lot more useful than if we'd kept it at the outer level.
Having said that, this restriction could be removed if we used a
parsetree representation that distinguished such outputs from actual
constants, which is something I hope to do in future. Hence, make
the patch a minimal addition rather than integrating it more tightly
(e.g. by renumbering the existing items in subquery_is_pushdown_safe's
comment).
Back-patch to 9.5 where grouping sets were introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16585-9d8c340d23ade8c1@postgresql.org
Commit 1281a5c90 rearranged the logic in this area rather drastically,
and it broke the case of adding a foreign key constraint in the same
ALTER that adds the pkey or unique constraint it depends on. While
self-referential fkeys are surely a pretty niche case, this used to
work so we shouldn't break it.
To fix, reorganize the scheduling rules in ATParseTransformCmd so
that a transformed AT_AddConstraint subcommand will be delayed into
a later pass in all cases, not only when it's been spit out as a
side-effect of parsing some other command type.
Also tweak the logic so that we won't run ATParseTransformCmd twice
while doing this. It seems to work even without that, but it's
surely wasting cycles to do so.
Per bug #16589 from Jeremy Evans. Back-patch to v13 where the new
code was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16589-31c8d981ca503896@postgresql.org
If a CREATE TABLE command uses both LIKE and traditional inheritance,
Vars in CHECK constraints and expression indexes that are absorbed
from a LIKE parent table tended to get mis-numbered, resulting in
wrong answers and/or bizarre error messages (though probably not any
actual crashes, thanks to validation occurring in the executor).
In v12 and up, the same could happen to Vars in GENERATED expressions,
even in cases with no LIKE clause but multiple traditional-inheritance
parents.
The cause of the problem for LIKE is that parse_utilcmd.c supposed
it could renumber such Vars correctly during transformCreateStmt(),
which it cannot since we have not yet accounted for columns added via
inheritance. Fix that by postponing processing of LIKE INCLUDING
CONSTRAINTS, DEFAULTS, GENERATED, INDEXES till after we've performed
DefineRelation().
The error with GENERATED and multiple inheritance is a simple oversight
in MergeAttributes(); it knows it has to renumber Vars in inherited
CHECK constraints, but forgot to apply the same processing to inherited
GENERATED expressions (a/k/a defaults).
Per bug #16272 from Tom Gottfried. The non-GENERATED variants of the
issue are ancient, presumably dating right back to the addition of
CREATE TABLE LIKE; hence back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16272-6e32da020e9a9381@postgresql.org
Commit 9d701e624f caused the regression test for EXPLAIN to fail on
the buildfarm member prion. This happened because of instability of
test output, i.e., in text format, whether "Planning:" line is output
varies depending on the system state.
This commit updated the regression test so that it ignores that
"Planning:" line to produce more stable test output and get rid of
the test failure.
Back-patch to v13.
Author: Fujii Masao
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1803897.1598021621@sss.pgh.pa.us
Commit ce77abe63c allowed EXPLAIN (BUFFERS) to report the information
on buffer usage during planning phase. However three issues were
reported regarding this feature.
(1) Previously, EXPLAIN option BUFFERS required ANALYZE. So the query
had to be actually executed by specifying ANALYZE even when we
want to see only the planner's buffer usage. This was inconvenient
especially when the query was write one like DELETE.
(2) EXPLAIN included the planner's buffer usage in summary
information. So SUMMARY option had to be enabled to report that.
Also this format was confusing.
(3) The output structure for planning information was not consistent
between TEXT format and the others. For example, "Planning" tag
was output in JSON format, but not in TEXT format.
For (1), this commit allows us to perform EXPLAIN (BUFFERS) without
ANALYZE to report the planner's buffer usage.
For (2), this commit changed EXPLAIN output so that the planner's
buffer usage is reported before summary information.
For (3), this commit made the output structure for planning
information more consistent between the formats.
Back-patch to v13 where the planner's buffer usage was allowed to
be reported in EXPLAIN.
Reported-by: Pierre Giraud, David Rowley
Author: Fujii Masao
Reviewed-by: David Rowley, Julien Rouhaud, Pierre Giraud
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/07b226e6-fa49-687f-b110-b7c37572f69e@dalibo.com
When the leftover invalid index is "ccold", there's no need to re-run
the command. Reword the instructions to make that explicit.
Backpatch to 12, where REINDEX CONCURRENTLY appeared.
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Reviewed-by: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200819211312.GA15497@alvherre.pgsql
This corrects an oversight by me in 2072932407, which made
ProcArrayClearTransaction() increment xactCompletionCount. That requires an
exclusive lock, obviously.
There's other approaches that avoid the exclusive acquisition, but given that a
2PC commit is fairly heavyweight, it doesn't seem worth doing so. I've not been
able to measure a performance difference, unsurprisingly. I did add a
comment documenting that we could do so, should it ever become a bottleneck.
Reported-By: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Author: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1355915.1597794204@sss.pgh.pa.us
Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane
Amit Kapila
Magnus Hagander
Michael Paquier
Peter Eisentraut
Fujii Masao
David Rowley
Andres Freund