I forgot that INT64_FORMAT can't be used with sscanf on Windows.
Use the same trick of sscanf'ing into a temp variable as we do in
some other places in zic.c.
The upstream IANA code avoids the portability problem by relying on
<inttypes.h>'s SCNdFAST64 macro. Once we're requiring C99 in all
branches, we should do likewise and drop this set of diffs from
upstream. For now, though, a hack seems fine, since we do not
actually care about leapseconds anyway.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4e5d1a5b-143e-e70e-a99d-a3b01c1ae7c3@2ndquadrant.com
The current definition (introduced in 9a3215026b) is dangerous. No
bugs exist in our code at present, but backpatch to 11 nonetheless,
where that commit debuted.
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
explain_get_index_name() applied quote_identifier() to the index name.
This is fine for text output, but the non-text output formats all have
their own quoting conventions and would much rather start from the
actual index name. For example in JSON you'd get something like
"Index Name": "\"My Index\"",
which is surely not desirable, especially when the same does not
happen for table names. Hence, move the responsibility for applying
quoting out to the callers, where it can go into already-existing
special code paths for text format.
This changes the API spec for users of explain_get_index_name_hook:
before, they were supposed to apply quote_identifier() if necessary,
now they should not. Research suggests that the only publicly
available user of the hook is hypopg, and it actually forgot to
apply quoting anyway, so it's fine. (In any case, there's no
behavioral change for the output of a hook as seen in non-text
EXPLAIN formats, so this won't break any case that programs should
be relying on.)
Digging in the commit logs, it appears that quoting was included in
explain_get_index_name's duties when commit 604ffd280 invented it;
and that was fine at the time because we only had text output format.
This should have been rethought when non-text formats were invented,
but it wasn't.
This is a fairly clear bug for users of non-text EXPLAIN formats,
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Per bug #16502 from Maciek Sakrejda. Patch by me (based on
investigation by Euler Taveira); thanks to Julien Rouhaud for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16502-57bd1c9f913ed1d1@postgresql.org
spg_mask() didn't take into account that pd_lower equal to SizeOfPageHeaderData
is still valid value. This commit fixes that. Backpatch to 11, where
spg_mask() pg_lower check was introduced.
Reported-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200615131405.GM52676%40paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 11
A few places calling fwrite and gzwrite were not setting errno to ENOSPC
when reporting errors, as is customary; this led to some failures being
reported as
"could not write file: Success"
which makes us look silly. Make a few of these places in pg_dump and
pg_basebackup use our customary pattern.
Backpatch-to: 9.5
Author: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200611153753.GU14879@telsasoft.com
The IANA time zone folk have deprecated use of a "posixrules" file in
the tz database. While for now it's our choice whether to keep
supplying one in our own builds, installations built with
--with-system-tzdata will soon be needing to cope with that file not
being present, at least on some platforms.
This causes a problem for the horology test, which expected the
nonstandard POSIX zone spec "CST7CDT" to apply pre-2007 US daylight
savings rules. That does happen if the posixrules file supplies such
information, but otherwise the test produces undesired results.
To fix, add an explicit transition date rule that matches 2005 practice.
(We could alternatively have switched the test to use some real time
zone, but it seems useful to have coverage of this type of zone spec.)
While at it, update a documentation example that also relied on
"CST7CDT"; use a real-world zone name instead. Also, document why
the zone names EST5EDT, CST6CDT, MST7MDT, PST8PDT aren't subject to
similar failures when "posixrules" is missing.
Back-patch to all supported branches, since the hazard is the same
for all.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1665379.1592581287@sss.pgh.pa.us
This was a danger only for --disable-spinlocks in combination with
atomic operations unsupported by the current platform.
While atomics.c was careful to signal that a separate semaphore ought
to be used when spinlock emulation is active, spin.c didn't actually
implement that mechanism. That's my (Andres') fault, it seems to have
gotten lost during the development of the atomic operations support.
Fix that issue and add test for nesting atomic operations inside a
spinlock.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200605023302.g6v3ydozy5txifji@alap3.anarazel.de
Backpatch: 9.5-
As s_lock_test, the already existing test for spinlocks, isn't run in
an automated fashion (and doesn't test a normal backend environment),
adding tests that are run as part of a normal regression run is a good
idea. Particularly in light of several recent and upcoming spinlock
related fixes.
Currently the new tests are run as part of the pre-existing
test_atomic_ops() test. That perhaps can be quibbled about, but for
now seems ok.
The only operations that s_lock_test tests but the new tests don't are
the detection of a stuck spinlock and S_LOCK_FREE (which is otherwise
unused, not implemented on all platforms, and will be removed).
This currently contains a test for more than INT_MAX spinlocks (only
run with --disable-spinlocks), to ensure the recent commit fixing a
bug with more than INT_MAX spinlock initializations is correct. That
test is somewhat slow, so we might want to disable it after a few
days.
It might be worth retiring s_lock_test after this. The added coverage
of a stuck spinlock probably isn't worth the added complexity?
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200606023103.avzrctgv7476xj7i@alap3.anarazel.de
We'd glossed over most of this complexity for years, but it's hard
to avoid writing it all down now, so that we can explain what happens
when there's no "posixrules" file in the IANA time zone database.
That was at best a tiny minority situation till now, but it's likely
to become quite common in the future, so we'd better explain it.
Nonetheless, we don't really encourage people to use POSIX zone specs;
picking a named zone is almost always what you really want, unless
perhaps you're stuck with an out-of-date zone database. Therefore,
let's shove all this detail into an appendix.
Patch by me; thanks to Robert Haas for help with some awkward wording.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1390.1562258309@sss.pgh.pa.us
Advancing a replication slot did not recompute the oldest xmin and LSN
values across replication slots, preventing resource removal like
segments not recycled at checkpoint time. The original commit that
introduced the slot advancing in 9c7d06d never did the update of those
oldest values, and b0afdca removed this code.
This commit adds a TAP test to check segment recycling with advancing
for physical slots, enforcing an extra segment switch before advancing
to check if the segment gets correctly recycled after a checkpoint.
Reported-by: Andres Freund
Reviewed-by: Alexey Kondratov, Kyptaro Horiguchi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200609171904.kpltxxvjzislidks@alap3.anarazel.de
Backpatch-through: 11
This absorbs a leap-second-related bug fix in localtime.c, and
teaches zic to handle an expiration marker in the leapseconds file.
Neither are of any interest to us (for the foreseeable future
anyway), but we need to stay more or less in sync with upstream.
Also adjust some over-eager changes in the README from commit 957338418.
I have no intention of making changes that require C99 in this code,
until such time as all the live back branches require C99. Otherwise
back-patching will get too exciting.
For the same reason, absorb assorted whitespace and other cosmetic
changes from HEAD into the back branches; mostly this reflects use of
improved versions of pgindent.
All in all then, quite a boring update. But I figured I'd get it
done while I was looking at this code.
Convert buffile.c error handling to use ereport. This fixes cases where
I/O errors were indistinguishable from EOF or not reported. Also remove
"%m" from error messages where errno would be bogus. While we're
modifying those strings, add block numbers and short read byte counts
where appropriate.
Back-patch to all supported releases.
Reported-by: Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKGJE04G%3D8TLK0DLypT_27D9dR8F1RQgNp0jK6qR0tZGWOw%40mail.gmail.com
Non-zero vacuum_defer_cleanup_age values cause pg_upgrade freezing of
the system catalogs to be incomplete, or do nothing. This will cause
the upgrade to fail in confusing ways.
Reported-by: Laurenz Albe
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7d6f6c22ba05ce0c526e9e8b7bfa8105e7da45e6.camel@cybertec.at
Backpatch-through: 9.5
Our documentation failed to point out that REPEATABLE READ is really
snapshot isolation, which might be important to some users. Point to
the standard reference paper for this complicated topic.
Likewise, add a reference to the VLDB paper about PostgreSQL SSI, for
technical information about our SSI implementation and how it compares
to S2PL.
While here, add a note about catalog access using a lower isolation
level, per recent user complaint.
Back-patch to all releases.
Reported-by: Kyle Kingsbury <aphyr@jepsen.io>
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Reviewed-by: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/db7b729d-0226-d162-a126-8a8ab2dc4443%40jepsen.io
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16454-9408996bb1750faf%40postgresql.org
When merging two NumericAggStates, the code missed adding the new
state's NaNcount unless its N was also nonzero; since those counts
are independent, this is wrong.
This would only have visible effect if some partial aggregate scans
found only NaNs while earlier ones found only non-NaNs; then we could
end up falsely deciding that there were no NaNs and fail to return a
NaN final result as expected. That's pretty improbable, so it's no
surprise this hasn't been reported from the field. Still, it's a bug.
I didn't try to produce a regression test that would show the bug,
but I did notice that these functions weren't being reached at all
in our regression tests, so I improved the tests to at least
exercise them. With these additions, I see pretty complete code
coverage on the aggregation-related functions in numeric.c.
Back-patch to 9.6 where this code was introduced. (I only added
the improved test case as far back as v10, though, since the
relevant part of aggregates.sql isn't there at all in 9.6.)
SSI's HeapCheckForSerializableConflictOut() test failed to correctly
handle conditions involving a concurrently inserted tuple which is later
concurrently updated by a separate transaction . A SELECT statement
that called HeapCheckForSerializableConflictOut() could end up using the
same XID (updater's XID) for both the original tuple, and the successor
tuple, missing the XID of the xact that created the original tuple
entirely. This only happened when neither tuple from the chain was
visible to the transaction's MVCC snapshot.
The observable symptoms of this bug were subtle. A pair of transactions
could commit, with the later transaction failing to observe the effects
of the earlier transaction (because of the confusion created by the
update to the non-visible row). This bug dates all the way back to
commit dafaa3ef, which added SSI.
To fix, make sure that we check the xmin of concurrently inserted tuples
that happen to also have been updated concurrently.
Author: Peter Geoghegan
Reported-By: Kyle Kingsbury
Reviewed-By: Thomas Munro
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/db7b729d-0226-d162-a126-8a8ab2dc4443@jepsen.io
Backpatch: All supported versions
The previous description string still described the pre-PostgreSQL
10 (pre eb61136dc7) behavior of
selecting between encrypted and unencrypted, but it is now choosing
between encryption algorithms.
Previously we used pg_atomic_write_64_impl inside
pg_atomic_init_u64. That works correctly, but on platforms without
64bit single copy atomicity it could trigger spurious valgrind errors
about uninitialized memory, because we use compare_and_swap for atomic
writes on such platforms.
I previously suppressed one instance of this problem (6c878edc1d),
but as Tom reports that wasn't enough. As the atomic variable cannot
yet be concurrently accessible during initialization, it seems better
to have pg_atomic_init_64_impl set the value directly.
Change pg_atomic_init_u32_impl for symmetry.
Reported-By: Tom Lane
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1714601.1591503815@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 9.5-
The redo routines for XLOG_CHECKPOINT_{ONLINE,SHUTDOWN} must acquire
ControlFileLock before modifying ControlFile->checkPointCopy, or the
checkpointer could write out a control file with a bad checksum.
Likewise, XLogReportParameters() must acquire ControlFileLock before
modifying ControlFile and calling UpdateControlFile().
Back-patch to all supported releases.
Author: Nathan Bossart <bossartn@amazon.com>
Author: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Reviewed-by: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/70BF24D6-DC51-443F-B55A-95735803842A%40amazon.com
In PostgreSQL 10, we stopped using System V semaphores on Linux
systems. Update the example we give of an error message from a
misconfigured system to show what people are most likely to see these
days.
Back-patch to 10, where PREFERRED_SEMAPHORES=UNNAMED_POSIX arrived.
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKGLmJUSwybaPQv39rB8ABpqJq84im2UjZvyUY4feYhpWMw%40mail.gmail.com
Commit 7be5d8df1f surfaced the logic
error, which had no functional implications, by adding "use warnings".
The buildfarm always customizes PROVE_FLAGS, so the warning did not
appear there. Back-patch to 9.5 (all supported versions).
It's intentional that we don't allow values greater than 24 hours,
while we do allow "24:00:00" as well as "23:59:60" as inputs.
However, the range check was miscoded in such a way that it would
accept "23:59:60.nnn" with a nonzero fraction. For time or timetz,
the stored result would then be greater than "24:00:00" which would
fail dump/reload, not to mention possibly confusing other operations.
Fix by explicitly calculating the result and making sure it does not
exceed 24 hours. (This calculation is redundant with what will happen
later in tm2time or tm2timetz. Maybe someday somebody will find that
annoying enough to justify refactoring to avoid the duplication; but
that seems too invasive for a back-patched bug fix, and the cost is
probably unmeasurable anyway.)
Note that this change also rejects such input as the time portion
of a timestamp(tz) value.
Back-patch to v10. The bug is far older, but to change this pre-v10
we'd need to ensure that the logic behaves sanely with float timestamps,
which is possibly nontrivial due to roundoff considerations.
Doesn't really seem worth troubling with.
Per report from Christoph Berg.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200520125807.GB296739@msg.df7cb.de
Fix some more violations of the "only straight-line code inside a
spinlock" rule. These are hazardous not only because they risk
holding the lock for an excessively long time, but because it's
possible for palloc to throw elog(ERROR), leaving a stuck spinlock
behind.
copy_replication_slot() had two separate places that did pallocs
while holding a spinlock. We can make the code simpler and safer
by copying the whole ReplicationSlot struct into a local variable
while holding the spinlock, and then referencing that copy.
(While that's arguably more cycles than we really need to spend
holding the lock, the struct isn't all that big, and this way seems
far more maintainable than copying fields piecemeal. Anyway this
is surely much cheaper than a palloc.) That bug goes back to v12.
InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots() not only did a palloc while
holding a spinlock, but for extra sloppiness then leaked the memory
--- probably for the lifetime of the checkpointer process, though
I didn't try to verify that. Fortunately that silliness is new
in HEAD.
pg_get_replication_slots() had a cosmetic violation of the rule,
in that it only assumed it's safe to call namecpy() while holding
a spinlock. Still, that's a hazard waiting to bite somebody, and
there were some other cosmetic coding-rule violations in the same
function, so clean it up. I back-patched this as far as v10; the
code exists before that but it looks different, and this didn't
seem important enough to adapt the patch further back.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200602.161518.1399689010416646074.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
This issue has been present since the introduction of this code as of
a3519a2 from 2002, and has been found by buildfarm member prion that
uses RELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE via the tests introduced recently in
e786be5.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200601022055.GB4121@paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 9.5
The repeat() function loops for potentially a long time without
ever checking for interrupts. This prevents, for example, a query
cancel from interrupting until the work is all done. Fix by
inserting a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() into the loop.
Backpatch to all supported versions.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/8692553c-7fe8-17d9-cbc1-7cddb758f4c6%40joeconway.com
ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE was used in an ereport with the
same message but different errdetail a few lines earlier, so use that
here as well.
Backpatch-through: 11
The target failed, tested $PATH binaries, or tested a stale temporary
installation. Commit c66b438db6 missed
this. Back-patch to 9.5 (all supported versions).
When installing binaries and libraries using the MSVC installation
routines, the operation gets done after moving to the root folder, whose
location is detected by checking if "configure" exists two times in a
row. So, calling the installation script from src/tools/msvc/ with an
extra "configure" file four levels up the root path of the code tree
causes the execution to go further up, leading to a failure in finding
the builds. This commit fixes the issue by moving to the root folder of
the code tree only once, when necessary.
Author: Arnold Müller
Reviewed-by: Daniel Gustafsson
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16343-f638f67e7e52b86c@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 9.5
The description missed a comma and lacked an explanation of what happens
with REPLICA IDENTITY USING INDEX when the dependent index is dropped.
Author: Marina Polyakova
Reviewed-by: Daniel Gustafsson, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ad1a0badc32658b1bbb07aa312346a1d@postgrespro.ru
Backpatch-through: 9.5
In a logical replication subscriber, a table using REPLICA IDENTITY FULL
which has a primary key would try to use the primary key's index
available to scan for a tuple, but an assertion only assumed as correct
the case of an index associated to REPLICA IDENTITY USING INDEX. This
commit corrects the assertion so as the use of a primary key index is a
valid case.
Reported-by: Dilip Kumar
Analyzed-by: Dilip Kumar
Author: Euler Taveira
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Masahiko Sawada
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFiTN-u64S5bUiPL1q5kwpHNd0hRnf1OE-bzxNiOs5zo84i51w@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
The previous coding zeroed out offsetof(ReplicationStateCtl, states)
more bytes than it was entitled to, as a consequence of starting the
zeroing from the wrong pointer (or, if you prefer, using the wrong
calculation of how much to zero).
It's unsurprising that this has not caused any reported problems,
since it can be expected that the newly-allocated block is at the end
of what we've used in shared memory, and we always make the shmem
block substantially bigger than minimally necessary. Nonetheless,
this is wrong and it could bite us someday; plus it's a dangerous
model for somebody to copy.
This dates back to the introduction of this code (commit 5aa235042),
so back-patch to all supported branches.
_bt_killitems marks btree items dead when a scan leaves the page where
they live, but it does so with only share lock (to improve concurrency).
This was historicall okay, since killing a dead item has no
consequences. However, with the advent of data checksums and
wal_log_hints, this action incurs a WAL full-page-image record of the
page. Multiple concurrent processes would write the same page several
times, leading to WAL bloat. The probability of this happening can be
reduced by only killing items if they're not already dead, so change the
code to do that.
The problem could eliminated completely by having _bt_killitems upgrade
to exclusive lock upon seeing a killable item, but that would reduce
concurrency so it's considered a cure worse than the disease.
Backpatch all the way back to 9.5, since wal_log_hints was introduced in
9.4.
Author: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+fd4k6PeRj2CkzapWNrERkja5G0-6D-YQiKfbukJV+qZGFZ_Q@mail.gmail.com
Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera
Alexander Korotkov
Andres Freund
Michael Paquier
Thomas Munro
Peter Geoghegan
Amit Kapila
Peter Eisentraut
Noah Misch
Joe Conway
Andrew Dunstan
Heikki Linnakangas