Partitioning tuple route code assumes that the partition chosen while
descending the partition hierarchy is always the correct one. This is
true except when the partition is the default partition and another
partition has been added concurrently: the partition constraint changes
and we don't recheck it. This can lead to tuples mistakenly being added
to the default partition that should have been rejected.
Fix by rechecking the default partition constraint while descending the
hierarchy.
An isolation test based on the reproduction steps described by Hao Wu
(with tweaks for extra coverage) is included.
Backpatch to 12, where this bug came in with 898e5e3290a7.
Reported by: Hao Wu <hawu@vmware.com>
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqFqBmcSSap4sFnCBUEL_VfOMmEKaQ3gwUhyfa4c7J_-nA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/DM5PR0501MB3910E97A9EDFB4C775CF3D75A42F0@DM5PR0501MB3910.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
Tomas Vondra observed that the IO behavior for HashAgg tends to be
worse than for Sort. Penalize HashAgg IO costs accordingly.
Also, account for the CPU effort of spilling the tuples and reading
them back.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200906212112.nzoy5ytrzjjodpfh@development
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Backpatch-through: 13
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
We reported the wrong types when complaining that an aggregate's
moving-aggregate implementation is inconsistent with its regular
implementation.
This was wrong since the feature was introduced, so back-patch
to all supported branches.
Jeff Janes
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMkU=1x808LH=LPhZp9mNSP0Xd1xDqEd+XeGcvEe48dfE6xV=A@mail.gmail.com
This is duplicative of an lstat that was just done by the calling
function (traverse_datadir), besides which we weren't really doing
anything with the results. There's not much point in checking to
see if someone removed the file since the previous lstat, since the
FILE_ACTION_REMOVE code would have to deal with missing-file cases
anyway. Moreover, the "exists = false" assignment was a dead store;
nothing was done with that value later.
A syscall saved is a syscall earned, so back-patch to 9.5
where this code was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1221796.1599329320@sss.pgh.pa.us
I happened to notice that the new test case I added in b55b4dad9
falls over if one runs "make check" repeatedly; though not in branches
after v10. That's because it was assuming that tmp_check/pgpass
wouldn't exist already. However, it's only been since v11 that the
Makefiles forcibly remove all of tmp_check/ before starting a TAP run.
This fix to unlink the file is therefore strictly necessary only in
v10 ... but it seems wisest to do it across the board, rather than
let the test rely on external logic to get the conditions right.
Commit 3f60f690f only partially fixed the broken-status-tracking
issue in LogicalRepApplyLoop: we need ping_sent to have the same
lifetime as last_recv_timestamp. The effects are much less serious
than what that commit fixed, though. AFAICS this would just lead to
extra ping requests being sent, once per second until the sender
responds. Still, it's a bug, so backpatch to v10 as before.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/959627.1599248476@sss.pgh.pa.us
If this data is not collected, pg_dump segfaults if asked for column
inserts.
Fix by Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Backpatch to release 12 where the bug was introduced.
The "DROP ACCESS METHOD gist2" test will require locking the index
to be dropped and then its table; while most ordinary operations
lock a table first then its index. While no concurrent test scripts
should be touching fast_emp4000, autovacuum might chance to be
processing that table when the DROP runs, resulting in a deadlock
failure. This is pretty rare but we see it in the buildfarm from
time to time.
To fix, acquire a lock on fast_emp4000 before issuing the DROP.
Since the point of the exercise is mostly to prevent buildfarm
failures, back-patch to 9.6 where this test was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/839004.1599185607@sss.pgh.pa.us
Because sigsetjmp() will restore the initial state with signals blocked,
the code path in bgworker.c for reporting an error and exiting would
execute that way. Usually this is fairly harmless; but if a parallel
worker had an error message exceeding the shared-memory communication
buffer size (16K) it would lock up, because it would wait for a
resume-sending signal from its parallel leader which it would never
detect.
To fix, just unblock signals at the appropriate point.
This can be shown to fail back to 9.6. The lack of parallel query
infrastructure makes it difficult to provide a simple test case for
9.5; but I'm pretty sure the issue exists in some form there as well,
so apply the code change there too.
Vignesh C, reviewed by Bharath Rupireddy, Robert Haas, and myself
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALDaNm1d1hHPZUg3xU4XjtWBOLCrA+-2cJcLpw-cePZ=GgDVfA@mail.gmail.com
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
Historically there's been a hard-wired assumption here that no line of
a .pgpass file could be as long as NAMEDATALEN*5 bytes. That's a bit
shaky to start off with, because (a) there's no reason to suppose that
host names fit in NAMEDATALEN, and (b) this figure fails to allow for
backslash escape characters. However, it fails completely if someone
wants to use a very long password, and we're now hearing reports of
people wanting to use "security tokens" that can run up to several
hundred bytes. Another angle is that the file is specified to allow
comment lines, but there's no reason to assume that long comment lines
aren't possible.
Rather than guessing at what might be a more suitable limit, let's
replace the fixed-size buffer with an expansible PQExpBuffer. That
adds one malloc/free cycle to the typical use-case, but that's surely
pretty cheap relative to the I/O this code has to do.
Also, add TAP test cases to exercise this code, because there was no
test coverage before.
This reverts most of commit 2eb3bc588, as there's no longer a need for
a warning message about overlength .pgpass lines. (I kept the explicit
check for comment lines, though.)
In HEAD and v13, this also fixes an oversight in 74a308cf5: there's not
much point in explicit_bzero'ing the line buffer if we only do so in two
of the three exit paths.
Back-patch to all supported branches, except that the test case only
goes back to v10 where src/test/authentication/ was added.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4187382.1598909041@sss.pgh.pa.us
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
collectMatchBitmap() needs to re-find the index tuple it was previously
looking at, after transiently dropping lock on the index page it's on.
The tuple should still exist and be at its prior position or somewhere
to the right of that, since ginvacuum never removes tuples but
concurrent insertions could add one. However, there was a thinko in
that logic, to the effect of expecting any inserted tuples to have the
same index "attnum" as what we'd been scanning. Since there's no
physical separation of tuples with different attnums, it's not terribly
hard to devise scenarios where this fails, leading to transient "lost
saved point in index" errors. (While I've duplicated this with manual
testing, it seems impossible to make a reproducible test case with our
available testing technology.)
Fix by just continuing the scan when the attnum doesn't match.
While here, improve the error message used if we do fail, so that it
matches the wording used in btree for a similar case.
collectMatchBitmap()'s posting-tree code path was previously not
exercised at all by our regression tests. While I can't make
a regression test that exhibits the bug, I can at least improve
the code coverage here, so do that. The test case I made for this
is an extension of one added by 4b754d6c1, so it only works in
HEAD and v13; didn't seem worth trying hard to back-patch it.
Per bug #16595 from Jesse Kinkead. This has been broken since
multicolumn capability was added to GIN (commit 27cb66fdf),
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16595-633118be8eef9ce2@postgresql.org
We were displaying the wrong phase information for 'info' message in the
index clean up phase because we were switching to the previous phase a bit
early. We were also not displaying context information for heap phase
unless the block number is valid which is fine for error cases but for
messages at 'info' or lower error level it appears to be inconsistent with
index phase information.
Reported-by: Sawada Masahiko
Author: Sawada Masahiko
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 13, where it was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+fd4k4HcbhPnCs7paRTw1K-AHin8y4xKomB9Ru0ATw0UeTy2w@mail.gmail.com
The trouble with doing this is that an apparently-constant subquery
output column isn't really constant if it is a grouping column that
appears in only some of the grouping sets. A qual using such a
column would be subject to incorrect const-folding after push-down,
as seen in bug #16585 from Paul Sivash.
To fix, just disable qual pushdown altogether if the sub-query has
nonempty groupingSets. While we could imagine far less restrictive
solutions, there is not much point in working harder right now,
because subquery_planner() won't move HAVING clauses to WHERE within
such a subquery. If the qual stays in HAVING it's not going to be
a lot more useful than if we'd kept it at the outer level.
Having said that, this restriction could be removed if we used a
parsetree representation that distinguished such outputs from actual
constants, which is something I hope to do in future. Hence, make
the patch a minimal addition rather than integrating it more tightly
(e.g. by renumbering the existing items in subquery_is_pushdown_safe's
comment).
Back-patch to 9.5 where grouping sets were introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16585-9d8c340d23ade8c1@postgresql.org
Commit 1281a5c90 rearranged the logic in this area rather drastically,
and it broke the case of adding a foreign key constraint in the same
ALTER that adds the pkey or unique constraint it depends on. While
self-referential fkeys are surely a pretty niche case, this used to
work so we shouldn't break it.
To fix, reorganize the scheduling rules in ATParseTransformCmd so
that a transformed AT_AddConstraint subcommand will be delayed into
a later pass in all cases, not only when it's been spit out as a
side-effect of parsing some other command type.
Also tweak the logic so that we won't run ATParseTransformCmd twice
while doing this. It seems to work even without that, but it's
surely wasting cycles to do so.
Per bug #16589 from Jeremy Evans. Back-patch to v13 where the new
code was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16589-31c8d981ca503896@postgresql.org
If a CREATE TABLE command uses both LIKE and traditional inheritance,
Vars in CHECK constraints and expression indexes that are absorbed
from a LIKE parent table tended to get mis-numbered, resulting in
wrong answers and/or bizarre error messages (though probably not any
actual crashes, thanks to validation occurring in the executor).
In v12 and up, the same could happen to Vars in GENERATED expressions,
even in cases with no LIKE clause but multiple traditional-inheritance
parents.
The cause of the problem for LIKE is that parse_utilcmd.c supposed
it could renumber such Vars correctly during transformCreateStmt(),
which it cannot since we have not yet accounted for columns added via
inheritance. Fix that by postponing processing of LIKE INCLUDING
CONSTRAINTS, DEFAULTS, GENERATED, INDEXES till after we've performed
DefineRelation().
The error with GENERATED and multiple inheritance is a simple oversight
in MergeAttributes(); it knows it has to renumber Vars in inherited
CHECK constraints, but forgot to apply the same processing to inherited
GENERATED expressions (a/k/a defaults).
Per bug #16272 from Tom Gottfried. The non-GENERATED variants of the
issue are ancient, presumably dating right back to the addition of
CREATE TABLE LIKE; hence back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16272-6e32da020e9a9381@postgresql.org
Commit 9d701e624f caused the regression test for EXPLAIN to fail on
the buildfarm member prion. This happened because of instability of
test output, i.e., in text format, whether "Planning:" line is output
varies depending on the system state.
This commit updated the regression test so that it ignores that
"Planning:" line to produce more stable test output and get rid of
the test failure.
Back-patch to v13.
Author: Fujii Masao
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1803897.1598021621@sss.pgh.pa.us
Commit ce77abe63c allowed EXPLAIN (BUFFERS) to report the information
on buffer usage during planning phase. However three issues were
reported regarding this feature.
(1) Previously, EXPLAIN option BUFFERS required ANALYZE. So the query
had to be actually executed by specifying ANALYZE even when we
want to see only the planner's buffer usage. This was inconvenient
especially when the query was write one like DELETE.
(2) EXPLAIN included the planner's buffer usage in summary
information. So SUMMARY option had to be enabled to report that.
Also this format was confusing.
(3) The output structure for planning information was not consistent
between TEXT format and the others. For example, "Planning" tag
was output in JSON format, but not in TEXT format.
For (1), this commit allows us to perform EXPLAIN (BUFFERS) without
ANALYZE to report the planner's buffer usage.
For (2), this commit changed EXPLAIN output so that the planner's
buffer usage is reported before summary information.
For (3), this commit made the output structure for planning
information more consistent between the formats.
Back-patch to v13 where the planner's buffer usage was allowed to
be reported in EXPLAIN.
Reported-by: Pierre Giraud, David Rowley
Author: Fujii Masao
Reviewed-by: David Rowley, Julien Rouhaud, Pierre Giraud
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/07b226e6-fa49-687f-b110-b7c37572f69e@dalibo.com
When the leftover invalid index is "ccold", there's no need to re-run
the command. Reword the instructions to make that explicit.
Backpatch to 12, where REINDEX CONCURRENTLY appeared.
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Reviewed-by: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200819211312.GA15497@alvherre.pgsql
