| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 9.5
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Tuple conversion incorrectly concluded that no conversion was needed
as long as all the attributes lined up. But if the source tuple has a
missing attribute (from addition of a column with default), then the
destination tupdesc might not reflect the same default. The typical
symptom was that the affected columns would be unexpectedly NULL.
Repair by always forcing conversion if the source has missing
attributes, which will be filled in by the deform operation. (In
theory we could optimize for when the destination has the same
default, but that seemed overkill.)
Backpatch to 11 where missing attributes were added.
Per bug #16242.
Vik Fearing (discovery, code, testing) and me (analysis, testcase).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16242-d1c9fca28445966b@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: update all files in master, backpatch legal files through 9.4
|
|
|
Tuple conversion support in tupconvert.c is able to convert rowtypes
between two relations, inner and outer, which are logically equivalent
but have a different ordering or even dropped columns (used mainly for
inheritance tree and partitions). This makes use of attribute mappings,
which are simple arrays made of AttrNumber elements with a length
matching the number of attributes of the outer relation. The length of
the attribute mapping has been treated as completely independent of the
mapping itself until now, making it easy to pass down an incorrect
mapping length.
This commit refactors the code related to attribute mappings and moves
it into an independent facility called attmap.c, extracted from
tupconvert.c. This merges the attribute mapping with its length,
avoiding to try to guess what is the length of a mapping to use as this
is computed once, when the map is built.
This will avoid mistakes like what has been fixed in dc816e58, which has
used an incorrect mapping length by matching it with the number of
attributes of an inner relation (a child partition) instead of an outer
relation (a partitioned table).
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191121042556.GD153437@paquier.xyz
|
