The existing text stated that "Default privileges that are specified
per-schema are added to whatever the global default privileges are for
the particular object type". However, that bare-bones observation is
not quite clear enough, as demonstrated by the complaint in bug #16124.
Flesh it out by stating explicitly that you can't revoke built-in
default privileges this way, and by providing an example to drive
the point home.
Back-patch to all supported branches, since it's been like this
from the beginning.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16124-423d8ee4358421bc@postgresql.org
Commit 6b76f1bb5 changed all the RADIUS auth parameters to be lists
rather than single values. But its use of SplitIdentifierString
to parse the list format was not very carefully thought through,
because that function thinks it's parsing SQL identifiers, which
means it will (a) downcase the strings and (b) truncate them to
be shorter than NAMEDATALEN. While downcasing should be harmless
for the server names and ports, it's just wrong for the shared
secrets, and probably for the NAS Identifier strings as well.
The truncation aspect is at least potentially a problem too,
though typical values for these parameters would fit in 63 bytes.
Fortunately, we now have a function SplitGUCList that is exactly
the same except for not doing the two unwanted things, so fixing
this is a trivial matter of calling that function instead.
While here, improve the documentation to show how to double-quote
the parameter values. I failed to resist the temptation to do
some copy-editing as well.
Report and patch from Marcos David (bug #16106); doc changes by me.
Back-patch to v10 where the aforesaid commit came in, since this is
arguably a regression from our previous behavior with RADIUS auth.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16106-7d319e4295d08e70@postgresql.org
The example of expansion of multiple views claimed that the resulting
subquery nest would not get fully flattened because of an aggregate
function. There's no aggregate in the example, though, only a user
defined function confusingly named MIN(). In a modern server, the
reason for the non-flattening is that MIN() is volatile, but I'm
unsure whether that was true back when this text was written.
Let's reduce the confusion level by using LEAST() instead (which
we didn't have at the time this example was created). And then
we can just say that the planner will flatten the sub-queries, so
the rewrite system doesn't have to.
Noted by Paul Jungwirth. This text is old enough to vote, so
back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+renyXZFnmp9PcvX1EVR2dR=XG5e6E-AELr8AHCNZ8RYrpnPw@mail.gmail.com
The previous statement that using a passphrase disables the ability to
change the server's SSL configuration without a server restart was no
longer completely true since the introduction of
ssl_passphrase_command_supports_reload.
Currently, postgres_fdw does not support preparing a remote transaction
for two-phase commit even in the case where the remote transaction is
read-only, but the old error message appeared to imply that that was not
supported only if the remote transaction modified remote tables. Change
the message so as to include the case where the remote transaction is
read-only.
Also fix a comment above the message.
Also add a note about the lack of supporting PREPARE TRANSACTION to the
postgres_fdw documentation.
Reported-by: Gilles Darold
Author: Gilles Darold and Etsuro Fujita
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier and Kyotaro Horiguchi
Backpatch-through: 9.4
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/08600ed3-3084-be70-65ba-279ab19618a5%40darold.net
Starting with PostgreSQL 12, pg_restore refuses to run when neither -d
nor -f are specified (c.f. commit 413ccaa74d), and it also makes "-f -"
mean the old implicit behavior of dumping to stdout. However, older
branches write to a file called ./- when invoked like that, making it
impossible to write pg_restore scripts that work across versions. This
is a partial backpatch of the aforementioned commit to all older
supported branches, providing an upgrade path.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191006190839.GE18030@telsasoft.com
This clarifies more how to use and how to take advantage of constraints
when attaching a new partition.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191028001207.GB23808@telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 10
This fixes multiple areas of the documentation:
- COPY for its past compatibility section.
- SET ROLE mentioning INHERITS instead of INHERIT
- PREPARE referring to stmt_name, that is not present.
- Extension documentation about format name with upgrade scripts.
Backpatch down to 9.4 for the relevant parts.
Author: Alexander Lakhin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/bf95233a-9943-b341-e2ff-a860c28af481@gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.4
The array <@ and @> operators do not worry about duplicates: if every
member of array X matches some element of array Y, then X is contained
in Y, even if several members of X get matched to the same Y member.
This was not explicitly stated in the docs though, so improve matters.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/156614120484.1310.310161642239149585@wrigleys.postgresql.org
The entry for commit f24649976 claimed that citext_pattern_ops could be
used for LIKE index searches, but in fact it cannot. That patch only
created the opclass and some related operators, without doing anything
to teach the planner about how to use it. The opclass is basically
useless in this unfinished state, which is why nothing was added to the
main documentation about it, and really we shouldn't have said anything
in the release notes either. So remove the entry.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKqncch4eBt2c8ddNVxzcVh3fFhdk54QoDMzpKgpqor4gA-wcQ@mail.gmail.com
It's important users be able to know (without looking at the source code)
that running DDL or DDL-like commands can interrupt autovacuum which can
lead to a lot of dead tuples and hence slower database operations.
Reported-by: James Coleman
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 9.4
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe-XYyNwML1=f=gnd0qWg46PnvD=BDrCZ5-L94B887XVxQ@mail.gmail.com
1. Commit 7086be6e3 should have documented the limitation that the direct
modification is disabled when WCO constraints are present, but didn't,
which is definitely my fault. Update the documentation (Postgres 9.6
onwards).
2. Commit fc22b6623 should have documented the limitation that the direct
modification is disabled when generated columns are defined, but
didn't. Update the documentation (Postgres 12 onwards).
Author: Etsuro Fujita
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPmGK14AYCPunLb6TRz1CQsW5Le01Z2ox8LSOKH0P-cOVDcQRA%40mail.gmail.com
The example used to explain 'Looping Through Query Results' uses
pseudo-materialized views. Replace it with a more up-to-date example
which does the same thing with actual materialized views, which have
been available since PostgreSQL 9.3.
In the passing, change '%' as format specifier instead of '%s' as is used
in other examples in plpgsql.sgml.
Reported-by: Ian Barwick
Author: Ian Barwick
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 9.4
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9a70d393-7904-4918-c97c-649f6d114b6a@2ndquadrant.com
Give it an explanatory para like the other default roles have.
Don't imply that it can send any signal whatever.
In passing, reorder the table entries and explanatory paras
for the default roles into some semblance of consistency.
Ian Barwick, tweaked a bit by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/89907e32-76f3-7282-a89c-ea19c722fe5d@2ndquadrant.com
Section 4.2.7 says that unless otherwise specified, built-in
aggregates ignore rows in which any input is null. This is
not true of the JSON aggregates, but it wasn't documented.
Fix that.
Of the other entries in table 9.55, some were explicit about
ignoring nulls, and some weren't; for consistency and
self-contained-ness, make them all say it explicitly.
Per bug #15884 from Tim Möhlmann. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15884-c32d848f787fcae3@postgresql.org
This adds a section for heap-related functions. These were previously
mixed with functions having a more general purpose, leading to
confusion. While on it, add a query example for fsm_page_contents.
Backpatch down to 10, where b5e3942 introduced the subsections for
function types in pageinspect documentation.
Author: Masahiko Sawada
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAD21AoDyM7E1+cK3-aWejxKTGC-wVVP2B+RnJhN6inXyeRmqzw@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
VACUUM's reference page had this text, but ANALYZE's didn't. That's
a clear oversight given that section 5.7 explicitly delegates the
responsibility to define permissions requirements to the individual
commands' man pages.
Per gripe from Isaac Morland. Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMsGm5fp3oBUs-2iRfii0iEO=fZuJALVyM2zJLhNTjG34gpAVQ@mail.gmail.com
Commit aa27977fe2 introduced this
restriction for pg_temp.function_name(arg); do likewise for types
created in temporary schemas. Programs that this breaks should add
"pg_temp." schema qualification or switch to arg::type_name syntax.
Back-patch to 9.4 (all supported versions).
Reviewed by Tom Lane. Reported by Tom Lane.
Security: CVE-2019-10208
The table has not been updated for some commands introduced in recent
releases, so refresh it. While on it, reorder entries alphabetically.
Backpatch all the way down for all the commands which have gone
missing.
Reported-by: Jeremy Smith
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15883-afff0ea3cc2dbbb6@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 9.4
Using pg_receivewal with synchronous_commit = remote_apply set in the
backend is incompatible if pg_receivewal is a synchronous standby as it
never applies WAL, so document this problem and solutions to it.
Backpatch to 9.6, where remote_apply has been added.
Author: Robert Haas, Jesper Pedersen
Reviewed-by: Laurenz Albe, Álvaro Herrera, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1427a2d3-1e51-9335-1931-4f8853d90d5e@redhat.com
Backpatch-through: 9.6
16828d5 has improved ALTER TABLE so as a column addition does not
require a rewrite for a non-NULL default with constant expressions, but
one spot in the documentation did not get updated consistently.
The documentation also now clarifies the fact that this does not apply
if the expression is volatile, where a table rewrite is still required.
Reported-by: Daniel Westermann
Author: Ian Barwick
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Daniel Westermann
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/DB6PR0902MB2184C7D5645CF15D75EB7957D2CF0@DB6PR0902MB2184.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com
Backpatch-through: 11
