Commit a97e85f2b caused "exceed the available area" warnings in PDF
builds. Fine-tune colwidth values to avoid that.
Back-patch to 9.6, like the prior patch. (This is of dubious value
before v13, since we were far from free of such warnings in older
branches. But we might as well keep the SGML looking the same in all
branches.)
Per buildfarm.
Previously it was documented that toast_tuple_target affected column
marked as only External or Extended. But this description is not correct
and toast_tuple_target affects also column marked as Main.
Back-patch to v11 where toast_tuple_target reloption was introduced.
Author: Shinya Okano
Reviewed-by: Tatsuhito Kasahara, Fujii Masao
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/93f46e311a67422e89e770d236059817@oss.nttdata.com
I removed the duplicate command tags for START_REPLICATION inadvertently
in commit 07082b08cc5d, but the replication protocol requires them. The
fact that the replication protocol was broken was not noticed because
all our test cases use an optimized code path that exits early, failing
to verify that the behavior is correct for non-optimized cases. Put
them back.
Also document this protocol quirk.
Add a test case that shows the failure. It might still succeed even
without the patch when run on a fast enough server, but it suffices to
show the bug in enough cases that it would be noticed in buildfarm.
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reported-by: Henry Hinze <henry.hinze@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Petr Jelínek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16643-eaadeb2a1a58d28c@postgresql.org
The descriptions of make_interval() and pg_options_to_table()
were randomly different from the reality embedded in pg_proc.
(These are not all the discrepancies I found in a quick search,
but the others perhaps require more discussion, since there's
at least a case to be made for changing pg_proc not the docs.)
make_interval issue noted by Thomas Kellerer.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7b154ef0-9f22-90b9-7734-4bf23686695b@gmx.net
Previously, a conversion such as
to_date('-44-02-01','YYYY-MM-DD')
would result in '0045-02-01 BC', as the code attempted to interpret
the negative year as BC, but failed to apply the correction needed
for our internal handling of BC years. Fix the off-by-one problem.
Also, arrange for the combination of a negative year and an
explicit "BC" marker to cancel out and produce AD. This is how
the negative-century case works, so it seems sane to do likewise.
Continue to read "year 0000" as 1 BC. Oracle would throw an error,
but we've accepted that case for a long time so I'm hesitant to
change it in a back-patch.
Per bug #16419 from Saeed Hubaishan. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Dar Alathar-Yemen and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16419-d8d9db0a7553f01b@postgresql.org
Explicitly mention that primary key constraints are also included in the
limitation that the constraint columns must be a superset of the partition key
columns.
Wording suggestion from Tom Lane.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/64062533.78364.1601415362244@mail.yahoo.com
Backpatch-through: 11, where unique constraints on partitioned tables were added
Previously the standby server didn't archive timeline history files
streamed from the primary even when archive_mode is set to "always",
while it archives the streamed WAL files. This could cause the PITR to
fail because there was no required timeline history file in the archive.
The cause of this issue was that walreceiver didn't mark those files as
ready for archiving.
This commit makes walreceiver mark those streamed timeline history
files as ready for archiving if archive_mode=always. Then the archiver
process archives the marked timeline history files.
Back-patch to all supported versions.
Reported-by: Grigory Smolkin
Author: Grigory Smolkin, Fujii Masao
Reviewed-by: David Zhang, Anastasia Lubennikova
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/54b059d4-2b48-13a4-6f43-95a087c92367@postgrespro.ru
We have had multiple reports that point to the
'@colReorder=latn-digit' collation customization being buggy. We have
reported this to ICU and are waiting for a fix. In the meantime,
remove references to this from the documentation and replace it by
another reordering example. Apparently, many users have been picking
up this example specifically from the documentation.
Author: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/153201618542.1404.3611626898935613264%40wrigleys.postgresql.org
Commit 15cb2bd27 neglected to make the running text match the
tables, leaving the reader with the strong impression that
we cannot count. Also, don't drop an unrelated para between
a table and the para describing it.
The previous version of the docs mentioned that files are rewritten,
implying that a second copy of each file gets created, but each file is
updated in-place.
Author: Michael Banck
Reviewed-by: Daniel Gustafsson, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/858086b6a42fb7d17995b6175856f7e7ec44d0a2.camel@credativ.de
Backpatch-through: 12
The majority of our audience is probably using a pre-packaged Postgres
build rather than raw sources. For them, much of runtime.sgml is not
too relevant, and they should be reading the packager's docs instead.
Add some notes pointing that way in appropriate places.
Text by me; thanks to Daniel Gustafsson for review and discussion,
and to Laurenz Albe for an earlier version.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/159430831443.16535.11360317280100947016@wrigleys.postgresql.org
We were already raising an error for DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY on a
partitioned table, albeit a different and confusing one:
ERROR: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY must be first action in transaction
Change that to throw a more comprehensible error:
ERROR: cannot drop partitioned index \"%s\" concurrently
Michael Paquier authored the test case for indexes on temporary
partitioned tables.
Backpatch to 11, where indexes on partitioned tables were added.
Reported-by: Jan Mussler <jan.mussler@zalando.de>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16594-d2956ca909585067@postgresql.org
Per discussion, we're planning to remove parser support for postfix
operators in order to simplify the grammar. So it behooves us to
put out a deprecation notice at least one release before that.
There is only one built-in postfix operator, ! for factorial.
Label it deprecated in the docs and in pg_description, and adjust
some examples that formerly relied on it. (The sister prefix
operator !! is also deprecated. We don't really have to remove
that one, but since we're suggesting that people use factorial()
instead, it seems better to remove both operators.)
Also state in the CREATE OPERATOR ref page that postfix operators
in general are going away.
Although this changes the initial contents of pg_description,
I did not force a catversion bump; it doesn't seem essential.
In v13, also back-patch 4c5cf5431, so that there's someplace for
the <link>s to point to.
Mark Dilger and John Naylor, with some adjustments by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/BE2DF53D-251A-4E26-972F-930E523580E9@enterprisedb.com
