| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This code was broken as of 582edc3, and is most likely not used anymore.
Note that pg_dump supports servers down to 8.0, and psql has code to
support servers down to 7.4.
Author: Julien Rouhaud
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOBaU_Y5y=zo3+2gf+2NJC1pvMYPcbRXoQaPXx=U7+C8Qh4CzQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
... and fallout (from branches 10, 11 and master). The change was
ill-considered, and it broke a few normal use cases; since we don't have
time to fix it, we'll try again after this week's minor releases.
Reported-by: Rushabh Lathia
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGPqQf0iQV=PPOv2Btog9J9AwOQp6HmuVd6SbGTR_v3Zp2XT1w@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Source-Git-URL: https://git.postgresql.org/git/pgtranslation/messages.git
Source-Git-Hash: 96d81aab04631d76c9ca90a3b12885100c061775
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
With correctly crafted DDLs, this could lead to disclosure of arbitrary
backend memory a user may have no right to access. This impacts only
REL_11_STABLE, as the issue has been introduced by 34295b8.
On HEAD, add regression tests to cover this issue in the future.
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Noah Misch
Security: CVE-2019-10129
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In examine_variable() and examine_simple_variable(), when checking the
user's table and column privileges to determine whether to grant
access to the pg_statistic data, use checkAsUser for the privilege
checks, if it's set. This will be the case if we're accessing the
table via a view, to indicate that we should perform privilege checks
as the view owner rather than the current user.
This change makes this planner check consistent with the check in the
executor, so the planner will be able to make use of statistics if the
table is accessible via the view. This fixes a performance regression
introduced by commit e2d4ef8de8, which affects queries against
non-security barrier views in the case where the user doesn't have
privileges on the underlying table, but the view owner does.
Note that it continues to provide the same safeguards controlling
access to pg_statistic for direct table access (in which case
checkAsUser won't be set) and for security barrier views, because of
the nearby checks on rte->security_barrier and rte->securityQuals.
Back-patch to all supported branches because e2d4ef8de8 was.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Jonathan Katz and Stephen Frost.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In commit e2d4ef8de8, security checks were added to prevent
user-supplied operators from running over data from pg_statistic
unless the user has table or column privileges on the table, or the
operator is leakproof. For a table with RLS, however, checking for
table or column privileges is insufficient, since that does not
guarantee that the user has permission to view all of the column's
data.
Fix this by also checking for securityQuals on the RTE, and insisting
that the operator be leakproof if there are any. Thus the
leakproofness check will only be skipped if there are no securityQuals
and the user has table or column privileges on the table -- i.e., only
if we know that the user has access to all the data in the column.
Back-patch to 9.5 where RLS was added.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Jonathan Katz and Stephen Frost.
Security: CVE-2019-10130
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As the test currently causes occasional deadlocks (due to the schema
cleanup from previous sessions potentially still running), and the
patch from f912d7dec2 has gotten a fair bit of buildfarm coverage,
remove the test from the test schedules. There's a set of minor
releases coming up.
Leave the tests in place, so it can manually be run using EXTRA_TESTS.
For now also leave it in master, as there's no imminent release, and
there's plenty (re-)index related work in 12. But we'll have to
disable it before long there too, unless somebody comes up with simple
enough fixes for the deadlock (I'm about to post a vague idea to the
list).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4622.1556982247@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 9.4-11 (no master!)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Project style is to check the success of SearchSysCacheN and friends
by applying HeapTupleIsValid to the result. A tiny minority of calls
creatively did it differently. Bring them into line with the rest.
This is just cosmetic, since HeapTupleIsValid is indeed just a null
check at the moment ... but that may not be true forever, and in any
case it puts a mental burden on readers who may wonder why these
call sites are not like the rest.
Back-patch to v11 just to keep the branches in sync. (The bulk of these
errors seem to have originated in v11 or v12, though a few are old.)
Per searching to see if anyplace else had made the same error
repaired in 62148c352.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Omitted in commit 05b38c7e6 (though it looks like the original blame
belongs to 9e9befac4). A failure is admittedly unlikely, but if it
did happen, SIGSEGV is not the approved method of reporting it.
Per Coverity. Back-patch to v11 where the broken code originated.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
The newline was incorrectly dropped in
a98c48debcd0620ab07608d53ee08fdb0e7a1edb.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commits 3dbb317d3 et al failed under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS testing.
Investigation showed that to reindex pg_class_oid_index, we must
suppress accesses to the index (via SetReindexProcessing) before we call
RelationSetNewRelfilenode, or at least before we do CommandCounterIncrement
therein; otherwise, relcache reloads happening within the CCI may try to
fetch pg_class rows using the index's new relfilenode value, which is as
yet an empty file.
Of course, the point of 3dbb317d3 was that that ordering didn't work
either, because then RelationSetNewRelfilenode's own update of the index's
pg_class row cannot access the index, should it need to.
There are various ways we might have got around that, but Andres Freund
came up with a brilliant solution: for a mapped index, we can really just
skip the pg_class update altogether. The only fields it was actually
changing were relpages etc, but it was just setting them to zeroes which
is useless make-work. (Correct new values will be installed at the end
of index build.) All pg_class indexes are mapped and probably always will
be, so this eliminates the problem by removing work rather than adding it,
always a pleasant outcome. Having taught RelationSetNewRelfilenode to do
it that way, we can revert the code reordering in reindex_index. (But
I left the moved setup code where it was; there seems no reason why it
has to run without use of the old index. If you're trying to fix a
busted pg_class index, you'll have had to disable system index use
altogether to get this far.)
Moreover, this means we don't need RelationSetIndexList at all, because
reindex_relation's hacking to make "REINDEX TABLE pg_class" work is
likewise now unnecessary. We'll leave that code in place in the back
branches, but a follow-on patch will remove it in HEAD.
In passing, do some minor cleanup for commit 5c1560606 (in HEAD only),
notably removing a duplicate newrnode assignment.
Patch by me, using a core idea due to Andres Freund. Back-patch to all
supported branches, as 3dbb317d3 was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/28926.1556664156@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The tests turn out to cause deadlocks in some circumstances. Fairly
reproducibly so with -DRELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE
-DCATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE. Some of the deadlocks may be hard to fix
without disproportionate measures, but others probably should be fixed
- but not in 12.
We discussed removing the new tests until we can fix the issues
underlying the deadlocks, but results from buildfarm animal
markhor (which runs with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS) indicates that there
might be a more severe, as of yet undiagnosed, issue (including on
stable branches) with reindexing catalogs. The failure is:
ERROR: could not read block 0 in file "base/16384/28025": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
Therefore it seems advisable to keep the tests.
It's not certain that running the tests in isolation removes the risk
of deadlocks. It's possible that additional locks are needed to
protect against a concurrent auto-analyze or such.
Per discussion with Tom Lane.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/28926.1556664156@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 9.4-, like 3dbb317d3
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Introduced in 3dbb317d3. Fix by using the new local variable in more
places.
Reported-By: Bruce Momjian (off-list)
Backpatch: 9.4-, like 3dbb317d3
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The interaction of these parameters was a bit confused/confusing,
and in fact v11 entirely misses the opportunity to apply partition
constraints when a partition is accessed directly (rather than
indirectly from its parent).
In HEAD, establish the principle that enable_partition_pruning controls
partition pruning and nothing else. When accessing a partition via its
parent, we do partition pruning (if enabled by enable_partition_pruning)
and then there is no need to consider partition constraints in the
constraint_exclusion logic. When accessing a partition directly, its
partition constraints are applied by the constraint_exclusion logic,
only if constraint_exclusion = on.
In v11, we can't have such a clean division of these GUCs' effects,
partly because we don't want to break compatibility too much in a
released branch, and partly because the clean coding requires
inheritance_planner to have applied partition pruning to a partitioned
target table, which it doesn't in v11. However, we can tweak things
enough to cover the missed case, which seems like a good idea since
it's potentially a performance regression from v10. This patch keeps
v11's previous behavior in which enable_partition_pruning overrides
constraint_exclusion for an inherited target table, though.
In HEAD, also teach relation_excluded_by_constraints that it's okay to use
inheritable constraints when trying to prune a traditional inheritance
tree. This might not be thought worthy of effort given that that feature
is semi-deprecated now, but we have enough infrastructure that it only
takes a couple more lines of code to do it correctly.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9813f079-f16b-61c8-9ab7-4363cab28d80@lab.ntt.co.jp
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/29069.1555970894@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When reindexing individual indexes on pg_class it was possible to
either trigger an assertion failure:
TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(!ReindexIsProcessingIndex(((index)->rd_id)))
That's because reindex_index() called SetReindexProcessing() - which
enables an asserts ensuring no index insertions happen into the index
- before calling RelationSetNewRelfilenode(). That not correct for
indexes on pg_class, because RelationSetNewRelfilenode() updates the
relevant pg_class row, which needs to update the indexes.
The are two reasons this wasn't noticed earlier. Firstly the bug
doesn't trigger when reindexing all of pg_class, as reindex_relation
has code "hiding" all yet-to-be-reindexed indexes. Secondly, the bug
only triggers when the the update to pg_class doesn't turn out to be a
HOT update - otherwise there's no index insertion to trigger the
bug. Most of the time there's enough space, making this bug hard to
trigger.
To fix, move RelationSetNewRelfilenode() to before the
SetReindexProcessing() (and, together with some other code, to outside
of the PG_TRY()).
To make sure the error checking intended by SetReindexProcessing() is
more robust, modify CatalogIndexInsert() to check
ReindexIsProcessingIndex() even when the update is a HOT update.
Also add a few regression tests for REINDEXing of system catalogs.
The last two improvements would have prevented some of the issues
fixed in 5c1560606dc4c from being introduced in the first place.
Reported-By: Michael Paquier
Diagnosed-By: Tom Lane and Andres Freund
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190418011430.GA19133@paquier.xyz
Backpatch: 9.4-, the bug is present in all branches
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If a temporary table with an identity column and ON COMMIT DROP is
created in a single-statement transaction (not useful, but allowed),
it would leave the catalog corrupted. We need to add a
CommandCounterIncrement() so that PreCommit_on_commit_actions() sees
the created dependency between table and sequence and can clean it
up.
The analogous and more useful case of doing this in a transaction
block already runs some CommandCounterIncrement() before it gets to
the on-commit cleanup, so it wasn't a problem in practical use.
Several locations for placing the new CommandCounterIncrement() call
were discussed. This patch places it at the end of
standard_ProcessUtility(). That would also help if other commands
were to create catalog entries that some on-commit action would like
to see.
Bug: #15631
Reported-by: Serge Latyntsev <dnsl48@gmail.com>
Author: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
|
| |
|
|
| |
Missed an inttypes.h dependency in previous patch. Per buildfarm.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This corrects a small bug in zic that caused it to output an incorrect
year-2440 transition in the Africa/Casablanca zone.
More interestingly, zic has grown a "-r" option that limits the range of
zone transitions that it will put into the output files. That might be
useful to people who don't like the weird GMT offsets that tzdb likes
to use for very old dates. It appears that for dates before the cutoff
time specified with -r, zic will use the zone's standard-time offset
as of the cutoff time. So for example one might do
make install ZIC_OPTIONS='-r @-1893456000'
to cause all dates before 1910-01-01 to be treated as though 1910
standard time prevailed indefinitely far back. (Don't blame me for
the unfriendly way of specifying the cutoff time --- it's seconds
since or before the Unix epoch. You can use extract(epoch ...)
to calculate it.)
As usual, back-patch to all supported branches.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
DST law changes in Palestine and Metlakatla.
Historical corrections for Israel.
Etc/UCT is now a backward-compatibility link to Etc/UTC, instead
of being a separate zone that generates the abbreviation "UCT",
which nowadays is typically a typo. Postgres will still accept
"UCT" as an input zone name, but it won't output it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fix DefineIndex so that it doesn't attempt to pass down a to-be-reused
index relfilenode to a child index creation, and fix TryReuseIndex
to not think that reuse is sensible for a partitioned index.
In v11, this fixes a problem where ALTER TABLE on a partitioned table
could assign the same relfilenode to several different child indexes,
causing very nasty catalog corruption --- in fact, attempting to DROP
the partitioned table then leads not only to a database crash, but to
inability to restart because the same crash will recur during WAL replay.
Either of these two changes would be enough to prevent the failure, but
since neither action could possibly be sane, let's put in both changes
for future-proofing.
In HEAD, no such bug manifests, but that's just an accidental consequence
of having changed the pg_class representation of partitioned indexes to
have relfilenode = 0. Both of these changes still seem like smart
future-proofing.
This is only a stop-gap because the code for ALTER TABLE on a partitioned
table with a no-op type change still leaves a great deal to be desired.
As the added regression tests show, it gets things wrong for comments on
child indexes/constraints, and it is regenerating child indexes it doesn't
have to. However, fixing those problems will take more work which may not
get back-patched into v11. We need a fix for the corruption problem now.
Per bug #15672 from Jianing Yang.
Patch by me, regression test cases based on work by Amit Langote,
who also did a lot of the investigative work.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15672-b9fa7db32698269f@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When an existing index in a partition is attached to a new index on
its parent, we forgot to set the "relispartition" flag correctly, which
meant that it was not possible to find the index in various operations,
such as adding a foreign key constraint that references that partitioned
table. One of four places that was assigning the parent index was
forgetting to do that, so fix by shifting responsibility of updating the
flag to the routine that changes the parent.
Author: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera
Reported-by: Hubert "depesz" Lubaczewski
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqHMsRtRYRWYTWavKJ8x14AFsv7bmAV46mYwnfD3vy8goQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Using PARTITION OF can result in column ordering being changed from the
database being dumped, if the partition uses a column layout different
from the parent's. It's not pg_dump's job to editorialize on table
definitions, so this is not acceptable; back-patch all the way back to
pg10, where partitioned tables where introduced.
This change also ensures that partitions end up in the correct
tablespace, if different from the parent's; this is an oversight in
ca4103025dfe (in pg12 only). Partitioned indexes (in pg11) don't have
this problem, because they're already created as independent indexes and
attached to their parents afterwards.
This change also has the advantage that the partition is restorable from
the dump (as a standalone table) even if its parent table isn't
restored.
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f_1c260nOt_vBJ067AZ3JXptXVRohDVMLEBmudX1YEx-A@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190423185007.GA27954@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In sigusr1_handler, don't ignore PMSIGNAL_ADVANCE_STATE_MACHINE based
on pmState. The restriction is unnecessary (PostmasterStateMachine
should work in any state), not future-proof (since it makes too many
assumptions about why the signal might be sent), and broken even today
because a race condition can make it necessary to respond to the signal
in PM_WAIT_READONLY state. The race condition seems unlikely, but
if it did happen, a hot-standby postmaster could fail to shut down
after receiving a smart-shutdown request.
In MaybeStartWalReceiver, don't clear the WalReceiverRequested flag
if the fork attempt fails. Leaving it set allows us to try
again in future iterations of the postmaster idle loop. (The startup
process would eventually send a fresh request signal, but this change
may allow us to retry the fork sooner.)
Remove an obsolete comment and unnecessary test in
PostmasterStateMachine's handling of PM_SHUTDOWN_2 state. It's not
possible to have a live walreceiver in that state, and AFAICT has not
been possible since commit 5e85315ea. This isn't a live bug, but the
false comment is quite confusing to readers.
In passing, rearrange sigusr1_handler's CheckPromoteSignal tests so that
we don't uselessly perform stat() calls that we're going to ignore the
results of.
Add some comments clarifying the behavior of MaybeStartWalReceiver;
I very nearly rearranged it in a way that'd reintroduce the race
condition fixed in e5d494d78. Mea culpa for not commenting that
properly at the time.
Back-patch to all supported branches. The PMSIGNAL_ADVANCE_STATE_MACHINE
change is the only one of even minor significance, but we might as well
keep this code in sync across branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9001.1556046681@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
cache_locale_time (extraction of LC_TIME-related info) had never been
taught the lessons we previously learned about extraction of info related
to LC_MONETARY and LC_NUMERIC. Specifically, commit 95a777c61 taught
PGLC_localeconv() that data coming out of localeconv() was in an encoding
determined by the relevant locale, but we didn't realize that there's a
similar issue with strftime(). And commit a4930e7ca hardened
PGLC_localeconv() against errors occurring partway through, but failed
to do likewise for cache_locale_time(). So, rearrange the latter
function to perform encoding conversion and not risk failure while
it's got the locales set to temporary values.
This time around I also changed PGLC_localeconv() to treat it as FATAL
if it can't restore the previous settings of the locale values. There
is no reason (except possibly OOM) for that to fail, and proceeding with
the wrong locale values seems like a seriously bad idea --- especially
on Windows where we have to also temporarily change LC_CTYPE. Also,
protect against the possibility that we can't identify the codeset
reported for LC_MONETARY or LC_NUMERIC; rather than just failing,
try to validate the data without conversion.
The user-visible symptom this fixes is that if LC_TIME is set to a locale
name that implies an encoding different from the database encoding,
non-ASCII localized day and month names would be retrieved in the wrong
encoding, leading to either unexpected encoding-conversion error reports
or wrong output from to_char(). The other possible failure modes are
unlikely enough that we've not seen reports of them, AFAIK.
The encoding conversion problems do not manifest on Windows, since
we'd already created special-case code to handle that issue there.
Per report from Juan José Santamaría Flecha. Back-patch to all
supported versions.
Juan José Santamaría Flecha and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAC+AXB22So5aZm2vZe+MChYXec7gWfr-n-SK-iO091R0P_1Tew@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This commit fixes a couple of issues related to the way password
verifiers hashed with MD5 or SCRAM-SHA-256 are detected, leading to
being able to store in catalogs passwords which do not follow the
supported hash formats:
- A MD5-hashed entry was checked based on if its header uses "md5" and
if the string length matches what is expected. Unfortunately the code
never checked if the hash only used hexadecimal characters, as reported
by Tom Lane.
- A SCRAM-hashed entry was checked based on only its header, which
should be "SCRAM-SHA-256$", but it never checked for any fields
afterwards, as reported by Jonathan Katz.
Backpatch down to v10, which is where SCRAM has been introduced, and
where password verifiers in plain format have been removed.
Author: Jonathan Katz
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/016deb6b-1f0a-8e9f-1833-a8675b170aa9@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 10
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
HoldPinnedPortals() did things in the wrong order: it must not mark
a portal autoHeld until it's been successfully held. Otherwise,
a failure while persisting the portal results in a server crash
because we think the portal is in a good state when it's not.
Also add a check that portal->status is READY before attempting to
hold a pinned portal. We have such a check before the only other
use of HoldPortal(), so it seems unwise not to check it here.
Lastly, rethink the responsibility for where to call HoldPinnedPortals.
The comment for it imagined that it was optional for any individual PL
to call it or not, but that cannot be the case: if some outer level of
procedure has a pinned portal, failing to persist it when an inner
procedure commits is going to be trouble. Let's have SPI do it instead
of the individual PLs. That's not a complete solution, since in theory
a PL might not be using SPI to perform commit/rollback, but such a PL
is going to have to be aware of lots of related requirements anyway.
(This change doesn't cause an API break for any external PLs that might
be calling HoldPinnedPortals per the old regime, because calling it
twice during a commit or rollback sequence won't hurt.)
Per bug #15703 from Julian Schauder. Back-patch to v11 where this code
came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15703-c12c5bc0ea34ba26@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If a FOR ALL TABLES publication exists, temporary and unlogged tables
are ignored for publishing changes. But CheckCmdReplicaIdentity()
would still check in that case that such a table has a replica
identity set before accepting updates. To fix, have
GetRelationPublicationActions() return that such a table publishes no
actions.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f3f151f7-c4dd-1646-b998-f60bd6217dd3@2ndquadrant.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, include actions include_dir, include_if_exists, and include
listed commented-out values which were not the defaults, which is
inconsistent with other entries. Instead, replace them with '', which
is the default value.
Reported-by: Emanuel Araújo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMuTAkYMx6Q27wpELDR3_v9aG443y7ZjeXu15_+1nGUjhMWOJA@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The buildfarm points out that UINT64_FORMAT might not work with sscanf;
it's calibrated for our printf implementation, which might not agree
with the platform-supplied sscanf. Fall back to just accepting an
unsigned long, which is already more than the documentation promises.
Oversight in e6c3ba7fb; back-patch to v11, as that was.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead, close that stdin. Per buildfarm member conchuela. Back-patch
to 9.6, where the test was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26478.1555373328@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Checks inside _bt_vacuum_needs_cleanup() allow division by zero to happen when
metad->btm_last_cleanup_num_heap_tuples == 0. This commit adjusts the
expression so that no division by zero might happen.
Reported-by: Piotr Stefaniak
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/DB8PR03MB5931C41F7787A95313F08322F22A0%40DB8PR03MB5931.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
Reviewed-by: Masahiko Sawada
Backpatch-through: 11
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Since Postgres 10, SHOW commands can be triggered with replication
connections in a WAL sender context, however it missed that a
transaction context is needed for syscache lookups. This commit makes
sure that the syscache lookups can happen correctly by setting a
transaction context when running SHOW commands in a WAL sender.
Superuser-only parameters can be displayed using SHOW commands not only
to superusers, but also to members of system role pg_read_all_settings,
which requires a syscache lookup to check if the connected role is a
member of this system role or not, or the instance crashes. Superusers
do not need to check the syscache so it worked correctly in this case.
New tests are added to cover this issue.
Reported-by: Alexander Kukushkin
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15734-2daa8761eeed8e20@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 10
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit c098509927f9a49ebceb301a2cb6a477ecd4ac3c changed
PostgresNode::get_new_node() to probe 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1, but
the new test was less effective for Windows native Perl. This increased
the failure rate of buildfarm members bowerbird and jacana. Instead,
test 0.0.0.0 and concrete addresses. This restores the old level of
defense, but the algorithm is still subject to its longstanding time of
check to time of use race condition. Back-patch to 9.6, like the
previous change.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/GrdLgAdUK9FdyZg8VIcTDKVOkys122ZINEb3CjjoySfGj2KyPiMKTh1zqtRp0TAD7FJ27G-OBB3eplxIB5GhcQH5o8zzGZfp0MuJaXJxVxk=@yesql.se
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Per buildfarm member jacana. Back-patch to v11; earlier branches skip
the affected test under msys.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/GrdLgAdUK9FdyZg8VIcTDKVOkys122ZINEb3CjjoySfGj2KyPiMKTh1zqtRp0TAD7FJ27G-OBB3eplxIB5GhcQH5o8zzGZfp0MuJaXJxVxk=@yesql.se
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Per buildfarm member jacana, the former fails under msys Perl 5.8.8.
Back-patch to 9.6, like the code in question.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/GrdLgAdUK9FdyZg8VIcTDKVOkys122ZINEb3CjjoySfGj2KyPiMKTh1zqtRp0TAD7FJ27G-OBB3eplxIB5GhcQH5o8zzGZfp0MuJaXJxVxk=@yesql.se
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The original coding of generate_partition_qual() just copied the list
of predicate expressions into the global CacheMemoryContext, making it
effectively impossible to clean up when the owning relcache entry is
destroyed --- the relevant code in RelationDestroyRelation() only managed
to free the topmost List header :-(. This resulted in a session-lifespan
memory leak whenever a table partition's relcache entry is rebuilt.
Fortunately, that's not normally a large data structure, and rebuilds
shouldn't occur all that often in production situations; but this is
still a bug worth fixing back to v10 where the code was introduced.
To fix, put the cached expression tree into its own small memory context,
as we do with other complicated substructures of relcache entries.
Also, deal more honestly with the case that a partition has an empty
partcheck list; while that probably isn't a case that's very interesting
for production use, it's legal.
In passing, clarify comments about how partitioning-related relcache
data structures are managed, and add some Asserts that we're not leaking
old copies when we overwrite these data fields.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7961.1552498252@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
postmaster startup scrutinizes any shared memory segment recorded in
postmaster.pid, exiting if that segment matches the current data
directory and has an attached process. When the postmaster.pid file was
missing, a starting postmaster used weaker checks. Change to use the
same checks in both scenarios. This increases the chance of a startup
failure, in lieu of data corruption, if the DBA does "kill -9 `head -n1
postmaster.pid` && rm postmaster.pid && pg_ctl -w start". A postmaster
will no longer stop if shmat() of an old segment fails with EACCES. A
postmaster will no longer recycle segments pertaining to other data
directories. That's good for production, but it's bad for integration
tests that crash a postmaster and immediately delete its data directory.
Such a test now leaks a segment indefinitely. No "make check-world"
test does that. win32_shmem.c already avoided all these problems. In
9.6 and later, enhance PostgresNode to facilitate testing. Back-patch
to 9.4 (all supported versions).
Reviewed (in earlier versions) by Daniel Gustafsson and Kyotaro HORIGUCHI.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190408064141.GA2016666@rfd.leadboat.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Patch by Liu Huailing <liuhuailing@cn.fujitsu.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Warnings about unary minus might have been wrong. It's a bit
surprising that nobody noticed yet ... probably the precedence-warning
feature hasn't really been used much in the field.
Rikard Falkeborn
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADRDgG6fzA8A2oeygUw4=o7ywo4kvz26NxCSgpq22nMD73Bx4Q@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
transaction.
The transaction that is initiated by the parallel worker to cooperate
with the actual transaction started by the main backend to complete the
query execution should not be counted as a separate transaction. The
other internal transactions started and committed by the parallel worker
are still counted as separate transactions as we that is what we do in
other places like autovacuum.
This will partially fix the bloat in transaction stats due to additional
transactions performed by parallel workers. For a complete fix, we need to
decide how we want to show all the transactions that are started internally
for various operations and that is a matter of separate patch.
Reported-by: Haribabu Kommi
Author: Haribabu Kommi
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila, Jamison Kirk and Rahila Syed
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJrrPGc9=jKXuScvNyQ+VNhO0FZk7LLAShAJRyZjnedd2D61EQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The MSVC build system already did this, and commit
617dc6d299c957e2784320382b3277ede01d9c63 used it in a second file.
Back-patch to 9.4, like that commit.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA8=A7_1SWc3+3Z=-utQrQFOtrj_DeohRVt7diA2tZozxsyUOQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We've long had reports of intermittent "could not reattach to shared
memory" errors on Windows. Buildfarm member dory fails that way when
PGSharedMemoryReAttach() execution overlaps with creation of a thread
for the process's "default thread pool". Fix that by providing a second
region to receive asynchronous allocations that would otherwise intrude
into UsedShmemSegAddr. In pgwin32_ReserveSharedMemoryRegion(), stop
trying to free reservations landing at incorrect addresses; the caller's
next step has been to terminate the affected process. Back-patch to 9.4
(all supported versions).
Reviewed by Tom Lane. He also did much of the prerequisite research;
see commit bcbf2346d69f6006f126044864dd9383d50d87b4.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190402135442.GA1173872@rfd.leadboat.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
join_is_legal() needs to reject forming certain outer joins in cases
where that would lead the planner down a blind alley. However, it
mistakenly supposed that the way to handle full joins was to treat them
as applying the same constraints as for left joins, only to both sides.
That doesn't work, as shown in bug #15741 from Anthony Skorski: given
a lateral reference out of a join that's fully enclosed by a full join,
the code would fail to believe that any join ordering is legal, resulting
in errors like "failed to build any N-way joins".
However, we don't really need to consider full joins at all for this
purpose, because we effectively force them to be evaluated in syntactic
order, and that order is always legal for lateral references. Hence,
get rid of this broken logic for full joins and just ignore them instead.
This seems to have been an oversight in commit 7e19db0c0.
Back-patch to all supported branches, as that was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15741-276f1f464b3f40eb@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The es_root_result_relations array needs to be shallow-copied in the
same way as the main es_result_relations array, else EPQ rechecks on
partitioned result relations fail, as seen in bug #15677 from
Norbert Benkocs.
Amit Langote, isolation test case added by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15677-0bf089579b4cd02d@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/19321.1554567786@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When trying to insert a tuple into a partitioned table, the routing to
the correct partition has been messed up by mixing when a tuple needs to
be stored in an intermediate parent's slot and when a tuple needs to be
converted because of attribute changes between the immediate parent
relation and the parent relation one level above that (the grandparent).
This could trigger errors like the following:
ERROR: cannot extract attribute from empty tuple slot SQL state: XX000
This was not detected because regression tests with dropped attributes
only included tests with two levels of partitioning, and this can be
triggered with three levels or more.
This fixes bug #15733, which has been introduced by 34295b8. The bug
happens only on REL_11_STABLE and HEAD gains the regression tests added
for this bug.
Reported-by: Petr Fedorov
Author: Amit Langote, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15733-7692379e310b80ec@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
pg_get_indexdef_worker carelessly fetched indoption entries even for
non-key index columns that don't have one. 99.999% of the time this
would be harmless, since the code wouldn't examine the value ... but
some fine day this will be a fetch off the end of memory, resulting
in SIGSEGV.
Detected through valgrind testing. Odd that the buildfarm's valgrind
critters haven't noticed.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Before those commits, partitioning-related code in the executor could
assume that ModifyTableState.resultRelInfo[] contains only leaf partitions.
However, now a fully-pruned update results in a dummy ModifyTable that
references the root partitioned table, and that breaks some stuff.
In v11, this led to an assertion or core dump in the tuple routing code.
Fix by disabling tuple routing, since we don't need that anyway.
(I chose to do that in HEAD as well for safety, even though the problem
doesn't manifest in HEAD as it stands.)
In v10, this confused ExecInitModifyTable's decision about whether it
needed to close the root table. But we can get rid of that altogether
by being smarter about where to find the root table.
Note that since the referenced commits haven't shipped yet, this
isn't fixing any bug the field has seen.
Amit Langote, per a report from me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20710.1554582479@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The foreign-key-checking loop in ATRewriteTables failed to ignore
relations without storage (e.g., partitioned tables), unlike the
initial loop. This accidentally worked as long as RI_Initial_Check
succeeded, which it does in most practical cases (including all the
ones exercised in the existing regression tests :-(). However, if
that failed, as for instance when there are permissions issues,
then we entered the slow fire-the-trigger-on-each-tuple path.
And that would try to read from the referencing relation, and fail
if it lacks storage.
A second problem, recently introduced in HEAD, was that this loop
had been broken by sloppy refactoring for the tableam API changes.
Repair both issues, and add a regression test case so we have some
coverage on this code path. Back-patch as needed to v11.
(It looks like this code could do with additional bulletproofing,
but let's get a working test case in place first.)
Hadi Moshayedi, Tom Lane, Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAK=1=WrnNmBbe5D9sm3t0a6dnAq3cdbF1vXY816j1wsMqzC8bw@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/19030.1554574075@sss.pgh.pa.us
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190325180405.jytoehuzkeozggxx%40alap3.anarazel.de
|
