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
When there are multiple publications for a subscription and one of those
publishes via the parent table by using publish_via_partition_root and the
other one directly publishes the child table, we end up copying the same
data twice during initial synchronization. The reason for this was that we
get both the parent and child tables from the publisher and try to copy
the data for both of them.
This patch extends the function pg_get_publication_tables() to take a
publication list as its input parameter. This allows us to exclude a
partition table whose ancestor is published by the same publication list.
This problem does exist in back-branches but we decide to fix it there in
a separate commit if required. The fix for back-branches requires quite
complicated changes to fetch the required table information from the
publisher as we can't update the function pg_get_publication_tables() in
back-branches. We are not sure whether we want to deviate and complicate
the code in back-branches for this problem as there are no field reports
yet.
Author: Wang wei
Reviewed-by: Peter Smith, Jacob Champion, Kuroda Hayato, Vignesh C, Osumi Takamichi, Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/OS0PR01MB57167F45D481F78CDC5986F794B99@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
We don't allow different column lists for the same table in the different
publications of the single subscription. A publication with a column list
except for dropped and generated columns should be considered the same as
a publication with no column list (which implicitly includes all columns
as part of the columns list). However, as we were not excluding the
dropped and generated columns from the column list combining such
publications leads to an error "cannot use different column lists for
table ...".
We decided not to backpatch this fix as there is a risk of users seeing
this as a behavior change and also we didn't see any field report of this
case.
Author: Shi yu
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/OSZPR01MB631091CCBC56F195B1B9ACB0FDFE9@OSZPR01MB6310.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
We previously thought that allowing such cases can confuse users when they
specify DROP TABLES IN SCHEMA but that doesn't seem to be the case based
on discussion. This helps to uplift the restriction during
ALTER TABLE ... SET SCHEMA which used to ensure that we couldn't end up
with a publication having both a schema and the same schema's table.
To allow this, we need to forbid having any schema on a publication if
column lists on a table are specified (and vice versa). This is because
otherwise we still need a restriction during ALTER TABLE ... SET SCHEMA to
forbid cases where it could lead to a publication having both a schema and
the same schema's table with column list.
Based on suggestions by Peter Eisentraut.
Author: Hou Zhijie and Vignesh C
Reviewed-By: Peter Smith, Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 15, where it was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2729c9e2-9aac-8cda-f2f4-34f2bcc18f4e@enterprisedb.com
This may be a bit too subtle, but removing that word from there makes
this clause no longer a perfect parallel of the GRANT variant "ALL
TABLES IN SCHEMA": indeed, for publications what we record is the schema
itself, not the tables therein, which means that any tables added to the
schema in the future are also published. This is completely different
to what GRANT does, which is affect only the tables that exist when the
command is executed.
There isn't resounding support for this change, but there are a few
positive votes and no opposition. Because the time to 15 RC1 is very
short, let's get this out now.
Backpatch to 15.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2729c9e2-9aac-8cda-f2f4-34f2bcc18f4e
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 923def9a53 and 52e4f0cd47 allowed to specify column lists and row
filters for publication tables. This commit extends the
pg_publication_tables view and pg_get_publication_tables function to
display that information.
This information will be useful to users and we also need this for the
later commit that prohibits combining multiple publications with different
column lists for the same table.
Author: Hou Zhijie
Reviewed By: Amit Kapila, Alvaro Herrera, Shi Yu, Takamichi Osumi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/202204251548.mudq7jbqnh7r@alvherre.pgsql
A fair percentage of the buildfarm doesn't recognize that oldcxt
won't be used uninitialized; silence those warnings by initializing it.
While here, upgrade the function's thoroughly inadequate header comment.
Oversight in 923def9a5, per buildfarm.
This allows specifying an optional column list when adding a table to
logical replication. The column list may be specified after the table
name, enclosed in parentheses. Columns not included in this list are not
sent to the subscriber, allowing the schema on the subscriber to be a
subset of the publisher schema.
For UPDATE/DELETE publications, the column list needs to cover all
REPLICA IDENTITY columns. For INSERT publications, the column list is
arbitrary and may omit some REPLICA IDENTITY columns. Furthermore, if
the table uses REPLICA IDENTITY FULL, column list is not allowed.
The column list can contain only simple column references. Complex
expressions, function calls etc. are not allowed. This restriction could
be relaxed in the future.
During the initial table synchronization, only columns included in the
column list are copied to the subscriber. If the subscription has
several publications, containing the same table with different column
lists, columns specified in any of the lists will be copied.
This means all columns are replicated if the table has no column list
at all (which is treated as column list with all columns), or when of
the publications is defined as FOR ALL TABLES (possibly IN SCHEMA that
matches the schema of the table).
For partitioned tables, publish_via_partition_root determines whether
the column list for the root or the leaf relation will be used. If the
parameter is 'false' (the default), the list defined for the leaf
relation is used. Otherwise, the column list for the root partition
will be used.
Psql commands \dRp+ and \d <table-name> now display any column lists.
Author: Tomas Vondra, Alvaro Herrera, Rahila Syed
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut, Alvaro Herrera, Vignesh C, Ibrar Ahmed,
Amit Kapila, Hou zj, Peter Smith, Wang wei, Tang, Shi yu
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28vddB_NFdRVpuyRBJEBWjz4BSyTB=_ektNRH8NJ1jf95g@mail.gmail.com
This commit adds support for decoding of sequences to the built-in
replication (the infrastructure was added by commit 0da92dc530).
The syntax and behavior mostly mimics handling of tables, i.e. a
publication may be defined as FOR ALL SEQUENCES (replicating all
sequences in a database), FOR ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA (replicating
all sequences in a particular schema) or individual sequences.
To publish sequence modifications, the publication has to include
'sequence' action. The protocol is extended with a new message,
describing sequence increments.
A new system view pg_publication_sequences lists all the sequences
added to a publication, both directly and indirectly. Various psql
commands (\d and \dRp) are improved to also display publications
including a given sequence, or sequences included in a publication.
Author: Tomas Vondra, Cary Huang
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut, Amit Kapila, Hannu Krosing, Andres
Freund, Petr Jelinek
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d045f3c2-6cfb-06d3-5540-e63c320df8bc@enterprisedb.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1710ed7e13b.cd7177461430746.3372264562543607781@highgo.ca
Commit 83fd4532a7 allowed publishing of changes via ancestors, for
publications defined with publish_via_partition_root. But the way
the ancestor was determined in get_rel_sync_entry() was incorrect,
simply updating the same variable. So with multiple publications,
replicating different ancestors, the outcome depended on the order
of publications in the list - the value from the last loop was used,
even if it wasn't the top-most ancestor.
This is a probably rare situation, as in most cases publications do
not overlap, so each partition has exactly one candidate ancestor
to replicate as and there's no ambiguity.
Fixed by tracking the "ancestor level" for each publication, and
picking the top-most ancestor. Adds a test case, verifying the
correct ancestor is used for publishing the changes and that this
does not depend on order of publications in the list.
Older releases have another bug in this loop - once all actions are
replicated, the loop is terminated, on the assumption that inspecting
additional publications is unecessary. But that misses the fact that
those additional applications may replicate different ancestors.
Fixed by removal of this break condition. We might still terminate the
loop in some cases (e.g. when replicating all actions and the ancestor
is the partition root).
Backpatch to 13, where publish_via_partition_root was introduced.
Initial report and fix by me, test added by Hou zj. Reviews and
improvements by Amit Kapila.
Author: Tomas Vondra, Hou zj, Amit Kapila
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila, Hou zj
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d26d24dd-2fab-3c48-0162-2b7f84a9c893%40enterprisedb.com
This feature adds row filtering for publication tables. When a publication
is defined or modified, an optional WHERE clause can be specified. Rows
that don't satisfy this WHERE clause will be filtered out. This allows a
set of tables to be partially replicated. The row filter is per table. A
new row filter can be added simply by specifying a WHERE clause after the
table name. The WHERE clause must be enclosed by parentheses.
The row filter WHERE clause for a table added to a publication that
publishes UPDATE and/or DELETE operations must contain only columns that
are covered by REPLICA IDENTITY. The row filter WHERE clause for a table
added to a publication that publishes INSERT can use any column. If the
row filter evaluates to NULL, it is regarded as "false". The WHERE clause
only allows simple expressions that don't have user-defined functions,
user-defined operators, user-defined types, user-defined collations,
non-immutable built-in functions, or references to system columns. These
restrictions could be addressed in the future.
If you choose to do the initial table synchronization, only data that
satisfies the row filters is copied to the subscriber. If the subscription
has several publications in which a table has been published with
different WHERE clauses, rows that satisfy ANY of the expressions will be
copied. If a subscriber is a pre-15 version, the initial table
synchronization won't use row filters even if they are defined in the
publisher.
The row filters are applied before publishing the changes. If the
subscription has several publications in which the same table has been
published with different filters (for the same publish operation), those
expressions get OR'ed together so that rows satisfying any of the
expressions will be replicated.
This means all the other filters become redundant if (a) one of the
publications have no filter at all, (b) one of the publications was
created using FOR ALL TABLES, (c) one of the publications was created
using FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA and the table belongs to that same schema.
If your publication contains a partitioned table, the publication
parameter publish_via_partition_root determines if it uses the partition's
row filter (if the parameter is false, the default) or the root
partitioned table's row filter.
Psql commands \dRp+ and \d <table-name> will display any row filters.
Author: Hou Zhijie, Euler Taveira, Peter Smith, Ajin Cherian
Reviewed-by: Greg Nancarrow, Haiying Tang, Amit Kapila, Tomas Vondra, Dilip Kumar, Vignesh C, Alvaro Herrera, Andres Freund, Wei Wang
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAHE3wggb715X%2BmK_DitLXF25B%3DjE6xyNCH4YOwM860JR7HarGQ%40mail.gmail.com
This fixes a set of issues that have accumulated over the past months
(or years) in various code areas. Most fixes are related to some recent
additions, as of the development of v15.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220124030001.GQ23027@telsasoft.com
This should have been added for the benefit of GetPublicationRelations;
let's add it now.
I couldn't measure a performance difference in the TAP tests, but that
may be because the tests use very few publications.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/202201120041.p24wvsfcsope@alvherre.pgsql
We publish the child table's data twice for a publication that has both
child and parent tables and is published with publish_via_partition_root
as true. This happens because subscribers will initiate synchronization
using both parent and child tables, since it gets both as separate tables
in the initial table list.
Ensure that pg_publication_tables returns only parent tables in such
cases.
Author: Hou Zhijie
Reviewed-by: Greg Nancarrow, Amit Langote, Vignesh C, Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/OS0PR01MB57167F45D481F78CDC5986F794B99@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
We show duplicate values for child tables in publications that have both
child and parent tables and are published with publish_via_partition_root
as false which is not what the user would expect.
We decided not to backpatch this as there is no user complaint about this
and it doesn't seem to be a critical issue.
Author: Hou Zhijie
Reviewed-by: Bharath Rupireddy, Amit Langote, Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/OS0PR01MB5716E97F00732B52DC2BBC2594989@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Commit 81d5995b4b introduced more fine-grained errormessages for
incorrect relkinds for publication, while unlogged and temporary
tables were reported with using the same message. This provides
separate error messages for these types of relpersistence.
Author: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALj2ACW9S=AswyQHjtO6WMcsergMkCBTtzXGrM8DX26DzfeTLQ@mail.gmail.com
A new option "FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA" in Create/Alter Publication allows
one or more schemas to be specified, whose tables are selected by the
publisher for sending the data to the subscriber.
The new syntax allows specifying both the tables and schemas. For example:
CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 FOR TABLE t1,t2,t3, ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA s1,s2;
OR
ALTER PUBLICATION pub1 ADD TABLE t1,t2,t3, ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA s1,s2;
A new system table "pg_publication_namespace" has been added, to maintain
the schemas that the user wants to publish through the publication.
Modified the output plugin (pgoutput) to publish the changes if the
relation is part of schema publication.
Updates pg_dump to identify and dump schema publications. Updates the \d
family of commands to display schema publications and \dRp+ variant will
now display associated schemas if any.
Author: Vignesh C, Hou Zhijie, Amit Kapila
Syntax-Suggested-by: Tom Lane, Alvaro Herrera
Reviewed-by: Greg Nancarrow, Masahiko Sawada, Hou Zhijie, Amit Kapila, Haiying Tang, Ajin Cherian, Rahila Syed, Bharath Rupireddy, Mark Dilger
Tested-by: Haiying Tang
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm0OANxuJ6RXqwZsM1MSY4s19nuH3734j4a72etDwvBETQ@mail.gmail.com
Updates/Deletes on a partition were allowed even without replica identity
after the parent table was added to a publication. This would later lead
to an error on subscribers. The reason was that we were not invalidating
the partition's relcache and the publication information for partitions
was not getting rebuilt. Similarly, we were not invalidating the
partitions' relcache after dropping a partitioned table from a publication
which will prohibit Updates/Deletes on its partition without replica
identity even without any publication.
Reported-by: Haiying Tang
Author: Hou Zhijie and Vignesh C
Reviewed-by: Vignesh C and Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/OS0PR01MB6113D77F583C922F1CEAA1C3FBD29@OS0PR01MB6113.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
These encapsulate a relation when referred from replication DDL.
Currently they don't do anything useful (they're just wrappers around
RangeVar and Relation respectively) but in the future they'll be used to
carry column lists.
Extracted from a larger patch by Rahila Syed.
Author: Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28vddB_NFdRVpuyRBJEBWjz4BSyTB=_ektNRH8NJ1jf95g@mail.gmail.com
Follow-up to 2ed532ee8c, a few error
messages in the logical replication area currently only deal with
tables, but if we're anticipating more relkinds such as sequences
being handled, then these messages also fall into the category
affected by the previous patch, so adjust them too.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c9ba5c6a-4bd5-e12c-1b3c-edbcaedbf392@enterprisedb.com
As of v14, pg_depend contains almost 7000 "pin" entries recording
the OIDs of built-in objects. This is a fair amount of bloat for
every database, and it adds time to pg_depend lookups as well as
initdb. We can get rid of all of those entries in favor of an OID
range check, i.e. "OIDs below FirstUnpinnedObjectId are pinned".
(template1 and the public schema are exceptions. Those exceptions
are now wired into IsPinnedObject() instead of initdb's code for
filling pg_depend, but it's the same amount of cruft either way.)
The contents of pg_shdepend are modified likewise.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3737988.1618451008@sss.pgh.pa.us
Previously, to check relation permanence, the Relation's Form_pg_class
structure member relpersistence was compared to the value
RELPERSISTENCE_PERMANENT ("p"). This commit adds the macro
RelationIsPermanent() and is used in appropirate places to simplify the
code. This matches other RelationIs* macros.
This macro will be used in more places in future cluster file encryption
patches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210318153134.GH20766@tamriel.snowman.net
CREATE PUBLICATION has failed spuriously when applied to a permanent
relation created or rewritten in the current transaction. Make the same
change to another site having the same semantic intent; the second
instance has no user-visible consequences. Back-patch to v13, where
commit c6b92041d3 broke this.
Kyotaro Horiguchi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210113.160705.2225256954956139776.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
To control whether partition changes are replicated using their own
identity and schema or an ancestor's, add a new parameter that can be
set per publication named 'publish_via_partition_root'.
This allows replicating a partitioned table into a different partition
structure on the subscriber.
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Reviewed-by: Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA+HiwqH=Y85vRK3mOdjEkqFK+E=ST=eQiHdpj43L=_eJMOOznQ@mail.gmail.com
When a partitioned table is added to a publication, changes of all of
its partitions (current or future) are published via that publication.
This change only affects which tables a publication considers as its
members. The receiving side still sees the data coming from the
individual leaf partitions. So existing restrictions that partition
hierarchies can only be replicated one-to-one are not changed by this.
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA+HiwqH=Y85vRK3mOdjEkqFK+E=ST=eQiHdpj43L=_eJMOOznQ@mail.gmail.com
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
Originally, Postgres Lists were a more or less exact reimplementation of
Lisp lists, which consist of chains of separately-allocated cons cells,
each having a value and a next-cell link. We'd hacked that once before
(commit d0b4399d8) to add a separate List header, but the data was still
in cons cells. That makes some operations -- notably list_nth() -- O(N),
and it's bulky because of the next-cell pointers and per-cell palloc
overhead, and it's very cache-unfriendly if the cons cells end up
scattered around rather than being adjacent.
In this rewrite, we still have List headers, but the data is in a
resizable array of values, with no next-cell links. Now we need at
most two palloc's per List, and often only one, since we can allocate
some values in the same palloc call as the List header. (Of course,
extending an existing List may require repalloc's to enlarge the array.
But this involves just O(log N) allocations not O(N).)
Of course this is not without downsides. The key difficulty is that
addition or deletion of a list entry may now cause other entries to
move, which it did not before.
For example, that breaks foreach() and sister macros, which historically
used a pointer to the current cons-cell as loop state. We can repair
those macros transparently by making their actual loop state be an
integer list index; the exposed "ListCell *" pointer is no longer state
carried across loop iterations, but is just a derived value. (In
practice, modern compilers can optimize things back to having just one
loop state value, at least for simple cases with inline loop bodies.)
In principle, this is a semantics change for cases where the loop body
inserts or deletes list entries ahead of the current loop index; but
I found no such cases in the Postgres code.
The change is not at all transparent for code that doesn't use foreach()
but chases lists "by hand" using lnext(). The largest share of such
code in the backend is in loops that were maintaining "prev" and "next"
variables in addition to the current-cell pointer, in order to delete
list cells efficiently using list_delete_cell(). However, we no longer
need a previous-cell pointer to delete a list cell efficiently. Keeping
a next-cell pointer doesn't work, as explained above, but we can improve
matters by changing such code to use a regular foreach() loop and then
using the new macro foreach_delete_current() to delete the current cell.
(This macro knows how to update the associated foreach loop's state so
that no cells will be missed in the traversal.)
There remains a nontrivial risk of code assuming that a ListCell *
pointer will remain good over an operation that could now move the list
contents. To help catch such errors, list.c can be compiled with a new
define symbol DEBUG_LIST_MEMORY_USAGE that forcibly moves list contents
whenever that could possibly happen. This makes list operations
significantly more expensive so it's not normally turned on (though it
is on by default if USE_VALGRIND is on).
There are two notable API differences from the previous code:
* lnext() now requires the List's header pointer in addition to the
current cell's address.
* list_delete_cell() no longer requires a previous-cell argument.
These changes are somewhat unfortunate, but on the other hand code using
either function needs inspection to see if it is assuming anything
it shouldn't, so it's not all bad.
Programmers should be aware of these significant performance changes:
* list_nth() and related functions are now O(1); so there's no
major access-speed difference between a list and an array.
* Inserting or deleting a list element now takes time proportional to
the distance to the end of the list, due to moving the array elements.
(However, it typically *doesn't* require palloc or pfree, so except in
long lists it's probably still faster than before.) Notably, lcons()
used to be about the same cost as lappend(), but that's no longer true
if the list is long. Code that uses lcons() and list_delete_first()
to maintain a stack might usefully be rewritten to push and pop at the
end of the list rather than the beginning.
* There are now list_insert_nth...() and list_delete_nth...() functions
that add or remove a list cell identified by index. These have the
data-movement penalty explained above, but there's no search penalty.
* list_concat() and variants now copy the second list's data into
storage belonging to the first list, so there is no longer any
sharing of cells between the input lists. The second argument is
now declared "const List *" to reflect that it isn't changed.
This patch just does the minimum needed to get the new implementation
in place and fix bugs exposed by the regression tests. As suggested
by the foregoing, there's a fair amount of followup work remaining to
do.
Also, the ENABLE_LIST_COMPAT macros are finally removed in this
commit. Code using those should have been gone a dozen years ago.
Patch by me; thanks to David Rowley, Jesper Pedersen, and others
for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11587.1550975080@sss.pgh.pa.us
This is still using the 2.0 version of pg_bsd_indent.
I thought it would be good to commit this separately,
so as to document the differences between 2.0 and 2.1 behavior.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16296.1558103386@sss.pgh.pa.us
The FirstNormalObjectId test here is a kluge that needs to go away,
but the only substitute we can think of is to add a column to pg_class,
which will take more work than can be handled right now. Add some
commentary in the meanwhile.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15150.1557257111@sss.pgh.pa.us
Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian
David Rowley
Amit Kapila
Alvaro Herrera
Michael Paquier
Tom Lane
Tomas Vondra
Daniel Gustafsson
Noah Misch