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
We were accepting creation of extended statistics only for regular
tables, but they can usefully be created for foreign tables, partitioned
tables, and materialized views, too. Allow those cases.
While at it, make sure all the rejected cases throw a consistent error
message, and add regression tests for the whole thing.
Author: David Rowley, Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f-BmGo410bh5RSPZUvOO0LhmHL2NYmdrC_Jm8pk_FfyCA@mail.gmail.com
This contains some protocol changes to SASL authentiation (which is new
in v10):
* For future-proofing, in the AuthenticationSASL message that begins SASL
authentication, provide a list of SASL mechanisms that the server
supports, for the client to choose from. Currently, it's always just
SCRAM-SHA-256.
* Add a separate authentication message type for the final server->client
SASL message, which the client doesn't need to respond to. This makes
it unambiguous whether the client is supposed to send a response or not.
The SASL mechanism should know that anyway, but better to be explicit.
Also, in the server, support clients that don't send an Initial Client
response in the first SASLInitialResponse message. The server is supposed
to first send an empty request in that case, to which the client will
respond with the data that usually comes in the Initial Client Response.
libpq uses the Initial Client Response field and doesn't need this, and I
would assume any other sensible implementation to use Initial Client
Response, too, but let's follow the SASL spec.
Improve the documentation on SASL authentication in protocol. Add a
section describing the SASL message flow, and some details on our
SCRAM-SHA-256 implementation.
Document the different kinds of PasswordMessages that the frontend sends
in different phases of SASL authentication, as well as GSS/SSPI
authentication as separate message formats. Even though they're all 'p'
messages, and the exact format depends on the context, describing them as
separate message formats makes the documentation more clear.
Reviewed by Michael Paquier and Álvaro Hernández Tortosa.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqS-aFg0iM3AQOJwKDv_0WkAedRjs1W2X8EixSz+sKBXCQ@mail.gmail.com
Add a missing comma in the synopsis after the XMLNAMESPACES clause.
Also, add an example illustrating the use of that clause.
Author: Arjen Nienhuis and Pavel Stěhule
Robert Haas
Peter Eisentraut
Stephen Frost
Bruce Momjian
Heikki Linnakangas
Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane
Fujii Masao
Andrew Dunstan