"dumping data out of order is not supported" to "restoring data out of order
is not supported", because you get that error during pg_restore not pg_dump.
Also fix some comments that didn't look so good after being pgindented as
perhaps they did originally.
on a platform that doesn't support this operation. The former coding
would allow an unrelated errno to be reported, which would be quite
misleading. Not sure if this has anything to do with the current
buildfarm failures, but it's certainly bogus as-is.
Add some checks that seem logically necessary, in particular let's make
real sure that HS slave sessions cannot create temp tables. (If they did
they would think that temp tables belonging to the master's session with
the same BackendId were theirs. We *must* not allow myTempNamespace to
become set in a slave session.)
Change setval() and nextval() so that they are only allowed on temp sequences
in a read-only transaction. This seems consistent with what we allow for
table modifications in read-only transactions. Since an HS slave can't have a
temp sequence, this also provides a nicer cure for the setval PANIC reported
by Erik Rijkers.
Make the error messages more uniform, and have them mention the specific
command being complained of. This seems worth the trifling amount of extra
code, since people are likely to see such messages a lot more than before.
tuple, instead of the former cpu_tuple_cost. It is sane to charge less than
cpu_tuple_cost because Materialize never does any qual-checking or projection,
so it's got less overhead than most plan node types. In particular, we want
to have the same charge here as is charged for readout in cost_sort. That
avoids the problem recently exhibited by Teodor wherein the planner prefers
a useless sort over a materialize step in a context where a lot of rescanning
will happen. The rescan costs should be just about the same for both node
types, so make their estimates the same.
Not back-patching because all of the current logic for rescan cost estimates
is new in 9.0. The old handling of rescans is sufficiently not-sane that
changing this in that structure is a bit pointless, and might indeed cause
regressions.
- The message "server stopped" should be affected by the -s option, just
like "server started" already was.
- The message "could not start server" should consistently go to stderr.
enabled. Bypassing the kernel cache is counter-productive in that case,
because the archiver/walsender process will read from the WAL file
soon after it's written, and if it's not cached the read will cause
a physical read, eating I/O bandwidth available on the WAL drive.
Also, walreceiver process does unaligned writes, so disable O_DIRECT
in walreceiver process for that reason too.
segment of XLOG_BACKUP_END record even if the the record is placed
at a segment boundary. Furthermore the previous implementation could
return nonexistent segment file name when the boundary is in segments
that has "FE" suffix; We never use segments with "FF" suffix.
Backpatch to 8.0, where hot backup was introduced.
Reported by Fujii Masao.
old memory context in plpython. Before only one of them was marked
volatile, but per report from Zdenek Kotala, some compilers do the
wrong thing here.
ArrayRef expressions that are not in the immediate context of an INSERT or
UPDATE targetlist. Such cases never arise in stored rules, so ruleutils.c
hadn't tried to handle them. However, they do occur in the targetlists of
plans derived from such statements, and now that EXPLAIN VERBOSE tries to
print targetlists, we need some way to deal with the case.
I chose to represent an assignment ArrayRef as "array[subscripts] := source",
which is fairly reasonable and doesn't omit any information. However,
FieldStore is problematic because the planner will fold multiple assignments
to fields of the same composite column into one FieldStore, resulting in a
structure that is hard to understand at all, let alone display comprehensibly.
So in that case I punted and just made it print the source expression(s).
Backpatch to 8.4 --- the lack of functionality exists in older releases,
but doesn't seem to be important for lack of anything that would call it.
being assigned to, in case the expression to be assigned is a FieldStore that
would need to modify that value. The need for this was foreseen some time
ago, but not implemented then because we did not have arrays of composites.
Now we do, but the point evidently got overlooked in that patch. Net result
is that updating a field of an array element doesn't work right, as
illustrated if you try the new regression test on an unpatched backend.
Noted while experimenting with EXPLAIN VERBOSE, which has also got some issues
in this area.
Backpatch to 8.3, where arrays of composites were introduced.
Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas
Greg Stark
Andrew Dunstan
Simon Riggs
Peter Eisentraut
Itagaki Takahiro