This omission allowed table owners to create statistics in any
schema, potentially leading to unexpected naming conflicts. For
ALTER TABLE commands that require re-creating statistics objects,
skip this check in case the user has since lost CREATE on the
schema. The addition of a second parameter to CreateStatistics()
breaks ABI compatibility, but we are unaware of any impacted
third-party code.
Reported-by: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
Author: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
Co-authored-by: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
Security: CVE-2025-12817
Backpatch-through: 13
Commit 71f4c8c6f7 (which implemented DETACH CONCURRENTLY) added code
to create a separate table constraint when a table is detached
concurrently, identical to the partition constraint, on the theory that
such a constraint was needed in case the optimizer had constructed any
query plans that depended on the constraint being there. However, that
theory was apparently bogus because any such plans would be invalidated.
For hash partitioning, those constraints are problematic, because their
expressions reference the OID of the parent partitioned table, to which
the detached table is no longer related; this causes all sorts of
problems (such as inability of restoring a pg_dump of that table, and
the table no longer working properly if the partitioned table is later
dropped).
We'd like to get rid of all those constraints. In fact, for branch
master, do that -- no longer create any substitute constraints.
However, out of fear that some users might somehow depend on these
constraints for other partitioning strategies, for stable branches
(back to 14, which added DETACH CONCURRENTLY), only do it for hash
partitioning.
(If you repeatedly DETACH CONCURRENTLY and then ATTACH a partition, then
with this constraint addition you don't need to scan the table in the
ATTACH step, which presumably is good. But if users really valued this
feature, they would have requested that it worked for non-concurrent
DETACH also.)
Author: Haiyang Li <mohen.lhy@alibaba-inc.com>
Reported-by: Fei Changhong <feichanghong@qq.com>
Reported-by: Haiyang Li <mohen.lhy@alibaba-inc.com>
Backpatch-through: 14
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18371-7fef49f63de13f02@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/19070-781326347ade7c57@postgresql.org
Commits 8319e5cb5 et al missed the fact that ATPostAlterTypeCleanup
contains three calls to ATPostAlterTypeParse, and the other two
also need protection against passing a relid that we don't yet
have lock on. Add similar logic to those code paths, and add
some test cases demonstrating the need for it.
In v18 and master, the test cases demonstrate that there's a
behavioral discrepancy between stored generated columns and virtual
generated columns: we disallow changing the expression of a stored
column if it's used in any composite-type columns, but not that of
a virtual column. Since the expression isn't actually relevant to
either sort of composite-type usage, this prohibition seems
unnecessary; but changing it is a matter for separate discussion.
For now we are just documenting the existing behavior.
Reported-by: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Author: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: CACJufxGKJtGNRRSXfwMW9SqVOPEMdP17BJ7DsBf=tNsv9pWU9g@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 13
Sometimes a table's constraint may depend on a column of another
table, so that we have to update the constraint when changing the
referenced column's type. We need to have lock on the constraint's
table to do that. ATPostAlterTypeCleanup believed that this case
was only possible for FOREIGN KEY constraints, but it's wrong at
least for CHECK and EXCLUDE constraints; and in general, we'd
probably need exclusive lock to alter any sort of constraint.
So just remove the contype check and acquire lock for any other
table. This prevents a "you don't have lock" assertion failure,
though no ill effect is observed in production builds.
We'll error out later anyway because we don't presently support
physically altering column types within stored composite columns.
But the catalog-munging is basically all there, so we may as well
make that part work.
Bug: #18970
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Diagnosed-by: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18970-a7d1cfe1f8d5d8d9@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 13
A few places that access system catalogs don't set up an active
snapshot before potentially accessing their TOAST tables. To fix,
push an active snapshot just before each section of code that might
require accessing one of these TOAST tables, and pop it shortly
afterwards. While at it, this commit adds some rather strict
assertions in an attempt to prevent such issues in the future.
Commit 16bf24e0e4 recently removed pg_replication_origin's TOAST
table in order to fix the same problem for that catalog. On the
back-branches, those bugs are left in place. We cannot easily
remove a catalog's TOAST table on released major versions, and only
replication origins with extremely long names are affected. Given
the low severity of the issue, fixing older versions doesn't seem
worth the trouble of significantly modifying the patch.
Also, on v13 and v14, the aforementioned strict assertions have
been omitted because commit 2776922201, which added
HaveRegisteredOrActiveSnapshot(), was not back-patched. While we
could probably back-patch it now, I've opted against it because it
seems unlikely that new TOAST snapshot issues will be introduced in
the oldest supported versions.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18127-fe54b6a667f29658%40postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18309-c0bf914950c46692%40postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZvMSUPOqUU-VNADN%40nathan
Backpatch-through: 13
For self-referencing foreign keys in partitioned tables, we weren't
handling creation of pg_constraint rows during CREATE TABLE PARTITION AS
as well as ALTER TABLE ATTACH PARTITION. This is an old bug -- mostly,
we broke this in 614a406b4f while trying to fix it (so 12.13, 13.9,
14.6 and 15.0 and up all behave incorrectly). This commit reverts part
of that with additional fixes for full correctness, and installs more
tests to verify the parts we broke, not just the catalog contents but
also the user-visible behavior.
Backpatch to all live branches. In branches 13 and 14, commit
46a8c27a72 changed the behavior during DETACH to drop a FK
constraint rather than trying to repair it, because the complete fix of
repairing catalog constraints was problematic due to lack of previous
fixes. For this reason, the test behavior in those branches is a bit
different. However, as best as I can tell, the fix works correctly
there.
In release notes we have to recommend that all self-referencing foreign
keys on partitioned tables be recreated if partitions have been created
or attached after the FK was created, keeping in mind that violating
rows might already be present on the referencing side.
Reported-by: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>
Reported-by: Matthew Gabeler-Lee <fastcat@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Luca Vallisa <luca.vallisa@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAECtzeWHCA+6tTcm2Oh2+g7fURUJpLZb-=pRXgeWJ-Pi+VU=_w@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18156-a44bc7096f0683e6@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAT=myvsiF-Attja5DcWoUWh21R12R-sfXECY2-3ynt8kaOqjw@mail.gmail.com
Since v15 we've had an option to apply a foreign key constraint's
ON DELETE SET DEFAULT or SET NULL action to just some of the
referencing columns. There was not a check for duplicate entries in
the list of columns-to-set, though. That caused a potential memory
stomp in CreateConstraintEntry(), which incautiously assumed that
the list of columns-to-set couldn't be longer than the number of key
columns. Even after fixing that, the case doesn't work because you
get an error like "multiple assignments to same column" from the SQL
command that is generated to do the update.
We could either raise an error for duplicate columns or silently
suppress the dups, and after a bit of thought I chose to do the
latter. This is motivated by the fact that duplicates in the FK
column list are legal, so it's not real clear why duplicates
in the columns-to-set list shouldn't be. Of course there's no
need to actually set the column more than once.
I left in the fix in CreateConstraintEntry() too, just because
it didn't seem like such low-level code ought to be making
assumptions about what it's handed.
Bug: #18879
Reported-by: Yu Liang <luy70@psu.edu>
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18879-259fc59d072bd4d7@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 15
Without this, an additional change to the same pg_attribute row
within the same command will fail. This is possible at least with
ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN on a multiple-inheritance-pathway structure.
(Another potential hazard is that immediately-following operations
might not see the missingval.)
Introduced by 95f650674, which split the former coding that
used a single pg_attribute update to change both atthasdef and
atthasmissing/attmissingval into two updates, but missed that
this should entail two CommandCounterIncrements as well. Like
that fix, back-patch through v13.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Author: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/025a3ffa-5eff-4a88-97fb-8f583b015965@gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 13
If a domain type has a default, adding a column of that type (without
any explicit DEFAULT clause) failed to install the domain's default
value in existing rows, instead leaving the new column null. This
is unexpected, and it used to work correctly before v11. The cause
is confusion in the atthasmissing mechanism about which default value
to install: we'd only consider installing an explicitly-specified
default, and then we'd decide that no table rewrite is needed.
To fix, take the responsibility for filling attmissingval out of
StoreAttrDefault, and instead put it into ATExecAddColumn's existing
logic that derives the correct value to fill the new column with.
Also, centralize the logic that determines the need for
default-related table rewriting there, instead of spreading it over
four or five places.
In the back branches, we'll leave the attmissingval-filling code
in StoreAttrDefault even though it's now dead, for fear that some
extension may be depending on that functionality to exist there.
A separate HEAD-only patch will clean up the now-useless code.
Reported-by: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Author: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CACJufxHFssPvkP1we7WMhPD_1kwgbG52o=kQgL+TnVoX5LOyCQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 13
In common cases, foreign keys are defined on the toplevel partitioned
table; but if instead one is defined on a partition and references a
partitioned table, and the referencing partition is detached, we would
examine the pg_constraint row on the partition being detached, and fail
to realize that the sub-constraints must be left alone. This causes the
ALTER TABLE DETACH process to fail with
ERROR: could not find ON INSERT check triggers of foreign key constraint NNN
This is similar but not quite the same as what was fixed by
53af9491a0. This bug doesn't affect branches earlier than 15, because
the detach procedure was different there, so we only backpatch down to
15.
Fix by skipping such modifying constraints that are children of other
constraints being detached.
Author: Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com>
Diagnosys-by: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAJ_b97GuPh6wQPbxQS-Zpy16Oh+0aMv-w64QcGrLhCOZZ6p+g@mail.gmail.com
* In DetachPartitionFinalize() we were applying a tuple conversion map
to tuples that didn't need one, which can lead to erratic behavior if
a partitioned table has a partition with a different column order, as
reported by Alexander Lakhin. This was introduced by 53af9491a0.
Don't do that. Also, modify a recently added test case to exercise
this.
* The same function as well as CloneFkReferenced() were acquiring
AccessShareLock on a partition, only to have CreateTrigger() later
acquire ShareRowExclusiveLock on it. This can lead to deadlock by
lock escalation, unnecessarily. Avoid that by acquiring the stronger
lock to begin with. This probably dates back to branch 12, but I have
never seen a report of this being a problem in the field.
* Innocuous but wasteful: also introduced by 53af9491a0, we were
reading a pg_constraint tuple from syscache that we don't need, as
reported by Tender Wang. Don't.
Backpatch to 15.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/461e9c26-2076-8224-e119-84998b6a784e@gmail.com
... to fix bugs when the referenced table is partitioned.
The catalog representation we chose for foreign keys connecting
partitioned tables (in commit f56f8f8da6) is inconvenient, in the
sense that a standalone table has a different way to represent the
constraint when referencing a partitioned table, than when the same
table becomes a partition (and vice versa). Because of this, we need to
create additional catalog rows on detach (pg_constraint and pg_trigger),
and remove them on attach. We were doing some of those things, but not
all of them, leading to missing catalog rows in certain cases.
The worst problem seems to be that we are missing action triggers after
detaching a partition, which means that you could update/delete rows
from the referenced partitioned table that still had referencing rows on
that table, the server failing to throw the required errors.
!!!
Note that this means existing databases with FKs that reference
partitioned tables might have rows that break relational integrity, on
tables that were once partitions on the referencing side of the FK.
Another possible problem is that trying to reattach a table
that had been detached would fail indicating that internal triggers
cannot be found, which from the user's point of view is nonsensical.
In branches 15 and above, we fix this by creating a new helper function
addFkConstraint() which is in charge of creating a standalone
pg_constraint row, and repurposing addFkRecurseReferencing() and
addFkRecurseReferenced() so that they're only the recursive routine for
each side of the FK, and they call addFkConstraint() to create
pg_constraint at each partitioning level and add the necessary triggers.
These new routines can be used during partition creation, partition
attach and detach, and foreign key creation. This reduces redundant
code and simplifies the flow.
In branches 14 and 13, we have a much simpler fix that consists on
simply removing the constraint on detach. The reason is that those
branches are missing commit f4566345cf, which reworked the way this
works in a way that we didn't consider back-patchable at the time.
We opted to leave branch 12 alone, because it's different from branch 13
enough that the fix doesn't apply; and because it is going in EOL mode
very soon, patching it now might be worse since there's no way to undo
the damage if it goes wrong.
Existing databases might need to be repaired.
In the future we might want to rethink the catalog representation to
avoid this problem, but for now the code seems to do what's required to
make the constraints operate correctly.
Co-authored-by: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
Co-authored-by: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reported-by: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>
Reported-by: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
Reported-by: Thomas Baehler (SBB CFF FFS) <thomas.baehler2@sbb.ch>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230420144344.40744130@karst
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230705233028.2f554f73@karst
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/GVAP278MB02787E7134FD691861635A8BC9032@GVAP278MB0278.CHEP278.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18541-628a61bc267cd2d3@postgresql.org
The previous commit fixed some ways of losing an inplace update. It
remained possible to lose one when a backend working toward a
heap_update() copied a tuple into memory just before inplace update of
that tuple. In catalogs eligible for inplace update, use LOCKTAG_TUPLE
to govern admission to the steps of copying an old tuple, modifying it,
and issuing heap_update(). This includes MERGE commands. To avoid
changing most of the pg_class DDL, don't require LOCKTAG_TUPLE when
holding a relation lock sufficient to exclude inplace updaters.
Back-patch to v12 (all supported versions). In v13 and v12, "UPDATE
pg_class" or "UPDATE pg_database" can still lose an inplace update. The
v14+ UPDATE fix needs commit 86dc90056d,
and it wasn't worth reimplementing that fix without such infrastructure.
Reviewed by Nitin Motiani and (in earlier versions) Heikki Linnakangas.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20231027214946.79.nmisch@google.com
Trying to attach a table as a partition which is already on the
referenced side of a foreign key on the partitioned table that it is
being attached to, leads to strange behavior: we try to clone the
foreign key from the parent to the partition, but this new FK points to
the partition itself, and the mix of pg_constraint rows and triggers
doesn't behave well.
Rather than trying to untangle the mess (which might be possible given
sufficient time), I opted to forbid the ATTACH. This doesn't seem a
problematic restriction, given that we already fail to create the
foreign key if you do it the other way around, that is, having the
partition first and the FK second.
Backpatch to all supported branches.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18541-628a61bc267cd2d3@postgresql.org
When a partitioned table has an index that doesn't support a constraint,
but a partition has an equivalent index that does, then a DETACH
operation would misbehave: a crash in assertion-enabled systems (because
we fail to find the constraint in the parent that we expect to), or a
broken coninhcount value (-1) in production systems (because we blindly
believe that we've successfully detached the parent).
While we should reject an ATTACH of a partition with such an index, we
have failed to do so in existing releases, so adding an error in stable
releases might break the (unlikely) existing applications that rely on
this behavior. At this point I don't even want to reject them in
master, because it'd break pg_upgrade if such databases exist, and there
would be no easy way to fix existing databases without expensive index
rebuilds.
(Later on we could add ALTER TABLE ... ADD CONSTRAINT USING INDEX to
partitioned tables, which would allow the user to fix such patterns. At
that point we could add more restrictions to prevent the problem from
its root.)
Also, add a test case that leaves one table in this condition, so that
we can verify that pg_upgrade continues to work if we later decide to
change the policy on the master branch.
Backpatch to all supported branches.
Co-authored-by: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18500-62948b6fe5522f56@postgresql.org
Commit 5b562644fe added a comment that
SetRelationHasSubclass() callers must hold this lock. When commit
17f206fbc8 extended use of this column to
partitioned indexes, it didn't take the lock. As the latter commit
message mentioned, we currently never reset a partitioned index to
relhassubclass=f. That largely avoids harm from the lock omission. The
cause for fixing this now is to unblock introducing a rule about locks
required to heap_update() a pg_class row. This might cause more
deadlocks. It gives minor user-visible benefits:
- If an ALTER INDEX SET TABLESPACE runs concurrently with ALTER TABLE
ATTACH PARTITION or CREATE PARTITION OF, one transaction blocks
instead of failing with "tuple concurrently updated". (Many cases of
DDL concurrency still fail that way.)
- Match ALTER INDEX ATTACH PARTITION in choosing to lock the index.
While not user-visible today, we'll need this if we ever make something
set the flag to false for a partitioned index, like ANALYZE does today
for tables. Back-patch to v12 (all supported versions), the plan for
the commit relying on the new rule. In back branches, add
LockOrStrongerHeldByMe() instead of adding a LockHeldByMe() parameter.
Reviewed (in an earlier version) by Robert Haas.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20240611024525.9f.nmisch@google.com
Normally this case isn't even reachable by non-superusers, since
permissions checks prevent naming such a table. However, it is
possible to make it happen by altering a parent table whose child
is another session's temp table.
We definitely can't support any such ALTER that requires modifying
the contents of such a table, since we lack access to the other
session's temporary-buffer pool. But there seems no good reason
to allow it even if it'd only require changing catalog contents.
One reason not to allow it is that we'd rather not expose the
implementation-dependent behavior of whether a specific ALTER
requires touching the table contents. Another is that there may
be (in future, even if not today) optimizations that assume that
a session's own temp tables won't be modified by other sessions.
Hence, add a RELATION_IS_OTHER_TEMP() check to all the places
where ALTER TABLE currently does CheckTableNotInUse(). (I looked
through all other callers of CheckTableNotInUse(), and they seem
OK already.)
Per bug #18492 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18492-c7a2634bf4968763@postgresql.org
ALTER COLUMN TYPE wasn't expecting to find any pg_proc objects
depending on the column whose type is to be altered. That indeed
wasn't possible when this code was written, but it is possible
since we introduced new-style SQL function bodies.
It's about as difficult to fix this case as it is to fix dependent
views, and we've been punting on those for years, so I don't feel
too awful about punting for functions too. (I sure wouldn't risk
back-patching such code.) So just throw a more user-facing error.
Also, adjust some of the existing comments to reflect that these
are all pretty much the same issue.
(This patch also fixes it so we will tolerate finding such a
dependency during ALTER COLUMN SET EXPRESSION; in that, we need
not do anything to the function, so no error is wanted. That
problem is new in HEAD.)
Per bug #18449 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to v14 where
we added new-style SQL functions.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18449-f8248467aaa294d5@postgresql.org
Ordinary ALTER TABLE SET SCHEMA will also move any owned sequences
into the new schema. We failed to do likewise for foreign tables,
because AlterTableNamespaceInternal believed that only certain
relkinds could have indexes, owned sequences, or constraints.
We could simply add foreign tables to that relkind list, but it
seems likely that the same oversight could be made again in
future. Instead let's remove the relkind filter altogether.
These functions shouldn't cost much when there are no objects
that they need to process, and surely this isn't an especially
performance-critical case anyway.
Per bug #18407 from Vidushi Gupta. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18407-4fd07373d252c6a0@postgresql.org
We seem to have only documented a foreign key can reference the columns of
a primary key or unique constraint. Here we adjust the documentation
to mention columns in a non-partial unique index can be mentioned too.
The header comment for transformFkeyCheckAttrs() also didn't mention
unique indexes, so fix that too. In passing make that header comment
reflect reality in the various other aspects where it deviated from it.
Bug: 18295
Reported-by: Gilles PARC
Author: Laurenz Albe, David Rowley
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18295-0ed0fac5c9f7b17b%40postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 12
This command, when used to add a column on a parent table with a complex
inheritance tree, tried to update multiple times the same tuple in
pg_attribute for a child table when incrementing attinhcount, causing
failures with "tuple already updated by self" because of a missing
CommandCounterIncrement() between two updates.
This exists for a rather long time, so backpatch all the way down.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin
Author: Tender Wang
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18297-b04cd83a55b51e35@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 12
contain_mutable_functions and contain_volatile_functions give
reliable answers only after expression preprocessing (specifically
eval_const_expressions). Some places understand this, but some did
not get the memo --- which is not entirely their fault, because the
problem is documented only in places far away from those functions.
Introduce wrapper functions that allow doing the right thing easily,
and add commentary in hopes of preventing future mistakes from
copy-and-paste of code that's only conditionally safe.
Two actual bugs of this ilk are fixed here. We failed to preprocess
column GENERATED expressions before checking mutability, so that the
code could fail to detect the use of a volatile function
default-argument expression, or it could reject a polymorphic function
that is actually immutable on the datatype of interest. Likewise,
column DEFAULT expressions weren't preprocessed before determining if
it's safe to apply the attmissingval mechanism. A false negative
would just result in an unnecessary table rewrite, but a false
positive could allow the attmissingval mechanism to be used in a case
where it should not be, resulting in unexpected initial values in a
new column.
In passing, re-order the steps in ComputePartitionAttrs so that its
checks for invalid column references are done before applying
expression_planner, rather than after. The previous coding would
not complain if a partition expression contains a disallowed column
reference that gets optimized away by constant folding, which seems
to me to be a behavior we do not want.
Per bug #18097 from Jim Keener. Back-patch to all supported versions.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18097-ebb179674f22932f@postgresql.org
Dropping a temp table could entail TOAST table access to clean out
toasted catalog entries, such as large pg_constraint.conbin strings
for complex CHECK constraints. If we did that via ON COMMIT DROP,
we triggered the assertion in init_toast_snapshot(), because
there was no provision for setting up a snapshot for the drop
actions. Fix that.
(I assume here that the adjacent truncation actions for ON COMMIT
DELETE ROWS don't have a similar problem: it doesn't seem like
nontransactional truncations would need to touch any toasted fields.
If that proves wrong, we could refactor a bit to have the same
snapshot acquisition cover that too.)
The test case added here does not fail before v15, because that
assertion was added in 277692220 which was not back-patched.
However, the race condition the assertion warns of surely
exists further back, so back-patch to all supported branches.
Per report from Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-x26=_QxxgdJyNbiCDzvtr2WV5ZDso_v-CukKEe6cBZw@mail.gmail.com
indisvalid is switched to true for partitioned indexes when all its
partitions have valid indexes when attaching a new partition, up to the
top-most parent if all its leaves are themselves valid when dealing with
multiple layers of partitions.
The copy of the tuple from pg_index used to switch indisvalid to true
came from the relation cache, which is incorrect. Particularly, in the
case reported by Shruthi Gowda, executing a series of commands in a
single transaction would cause the validation of partitioned indexes to
use an incorrect version of a pg_index tuple, as indexes are reloaded
after an invalidation request with RelationReloadIndexInfo(), a much
faster version than a full index cache rebuild. In this case, the
limited information updated in the cache leads to an incorrect version
of the tuple used. One of the symptoms reported was the following
error, with a replica identity update, for instance:
"ERROR: attempted to update invisible tuple"
This is incorrect since 8b08f7d, so backpatch all the way down.
Reported-by: Shruthi Gowda
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Shruthi Gowda, Dilip Kumar
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAASxf_PBcxax0wW-3gErUyftZ0XrCs3Lrpuhq4-Z3Fak1DoW7Q@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 11
A portion of ALTER TABLE .. ATTACH PARTITION is to ensure that the
partition being attached to the partitioned table has a correct set of
indexes, so as there is a consistent index mapping between the
partitioned table and its new-to-be partition. However, as introduced
in 8b08f7d, the current logic could choose an invalid index as a match,
which is something that can exist when dealing with more than two levels
of partitioning, like attaching a partitioned table (that has
partitions, with an index created by CREATE INDEX ON ONLY) to another
partitioned table.
A partitioned index with indisvalid set to false is equivalent to an
incomplete partition tree, meaning that an invalid partitioned index
does not have indexes defined in all its partitions. Hence, choosing an
invalid partitioned index can create inconsistent partition index trees,
where the parent attaching to is valid, but its partition may be
invalid.
In the report from Alexander Lakhin, this showed up as an assertion
failure when validating an index. Without assertions enabled, the
partition index tree would be actually broken, as indisvalid should
be switched to true for a partitioned index once all its partitions are
themselves valid. With two levels of partitioning, the top partitioned
table used a valid index and was able to link to an invalid index stored
on its partition, itself a partitioned table.
I have studied a few options here (like the possibility to switch
indisvalid to false for the parent), but came down to the conclusion
that we'd better rely on a simple rule: invalid indexes had better never
be chosen, so as the partition attached uses and creates indexes that
the parent expects. Some regression tests are added to provide some
coverage. Note that the existing coverage is not impacted.
This is a problem since partitioned indexes exist, so backpatch all the
way down to v11.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/14987634-43c0-0cb3-e075-94d423607e08@gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 11
Up through v11 it was sensible to use the "oid" system column as
a foreign key column, but since that was removed there's no visible
usefulness in making any of the remaining system columns a foreign
key. Moreover, since the TupleTableSlot rewrites in v12, such cases
actively fail because of implicit assumptions that only user columns
appear in foreign keys. The lack of complaints about that seems
like good evidence that no one is trying to do it. Hence, rather
than trying to repair those assumptions (of which there are at least
two, maybe more), let's just forbid the case up front.
Per this patch, a system column in either the referenced or
referencing side of a foreign key will draw this error; however,
putting one in the referenced side would have failed later anyway,
since we don't allow unique indexes to be made on system columns.
Per bug #17877 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to v12; the
case still appears to work in v11, so we shouldn't break it there.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17877-4bcc658e33df6de1@postgresql.org
find_composite_type_dependencies() ignored indexes, which is a poor
decision because an expression index could have a stored column of
a composite (or other container) type even when the underlying table
does not. Teach it to detect such cases and error out. We have to
work a bit harder than for other relations because the pg_depend entry
won't identify the specific index column of concern, but it's not much
new code.
This does not address bug #17872's original complaint that dropping
a column in such a type might lead to violations of the uniqueness
property that a unique index is supposed to ensure. That seems of
much less concern to me because it won't lead to crashes.
Per bug #17872 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17872-d0fbb799dc3fd85d@postgresql.org
Beginning in v15, if you apply ALTER TABLE ENABLE/DISABLE TRIGGER to
a partitioned table, it also affects the partitions' cloned versions
of the affected trigger(s). The initial implementation of this
located the clones by name, but that fails on foreign-key triggers
which have names incorporating their own OIDs. We can fix that, and
also make the behavior more bulletproof in the face of user-initiated
trigger renames, by identifying the cloned triggers by tgparentid.
Following the lead of earlier commits in this area, I took care not
to break ABI in the v15 branch, even though I rather doubt there
are any external callers of EnableDisableTrigger.
While here, update the documentation, which was not touched when
the semantics were changed.
Per bug #17817 from Alan Hodgson. Back-patch to v15; older versions
do not have this behavior.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17817-31dfb7c2100d9f3d@postgresql.org
The motivation for this change is that when pg_dump dumps a
partitioned index that's marked REPLICA IDENTITY, it generates a
command sequence that applies REPLICA IDENTITY before the partitioned
index has been marked valid, causing restore to fail. We could
perhaps change pg_dump to not do it like that, but that would be
difficult and would not fix existing dump files with the problem.
There seems to be very little reason for the backend to disallow
this anyway --- the code ignores indisreplident when the index
isn't valid --- so instead let's fix it by allowing the case.
Commit 9511fb37a previously expressed a concern that allowing
indisreplident to be set on invalid indexes might allow us to
wind up in a situation where a table could have indisreplident
set on multiple indexes. I'm not sure I follow that concern
exactly, but in any case the only way that could happen is because
relation_mark_replica_identity is too trusting about the existing set
of markings being valid. Let's just rip out its early-exit code path
(which sure looks like premature optimization anyway; what are we
doing expending code to make redundant ALTER TABLE ... REPLICA
IDENTITY commands marginally faster and not-redundant ones marginally
slower?) and fix it to positively guarantee that no more than one
index is marked indisreplident.
The pg_dump failure can be demonstrated in all supported branches,
so back-patch all the way. I chose to back-patch 9511fb37a as well,
just to keep indisreplident handling the same in all branches.
Per bug #17756 from Sergey Belyashov.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17756-dd50e8e0c8dd4a40@postgresql.org
Commit f56f8f8da6 added some code in CloneFkReferencing that's way too
lax about a Constraint node it manufactures, not initializing enough
struct members -- initially_valid in particular was forgotten. This
causes some FKs in partitions added by ALTER TABLE ATTACH PARTITION to
be marked as not validated. Set initially_valid true, which fixes the
bug.
While at it, make the struct initialization more complete. Very similar
code was added in two other places by the same commit; make them all
follow the same pattern for consistency, though no bugs are apparent
there.
This bug has never been reported: I only happened to notice while
working on commit 614a406b4f. The test case that was added there with
the improper result is repaired.
Backpatch to 12.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20221005105523.bhuhkdx4olajboof@alvherre.pgsql
There are a number of bugs in this area. Two of them are fixed here,
namely:
1. get_relation_idx_constraint_oid does not restrict the type of
constraint that's returned, so with sufficient bad luck it can
return the OID of a foreign key constraint. This has the effect that
a primary key in a partition can end up as a child of a foreign key,
which makes no sense (it needs to be the child of the equivalent
primary key.)
Change the API contract so that only index-backed constraints are
returned, mimicking get_constraint_index().
2. Both CloneFkReferenced and CloneFkReferencing clone a
self-referencing foreign key, so the partition ends up with
a duplicate foreign key. Change the former function to ignore such
constraints.
Add some tests to verify that things are better now. (However, these
new tests show some additional misbehavior that will be fixed later --
namely that there's a constraint marked NOT VALID.)
Backpatch to 12, where these constraints are possible at all.
Author: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220603154232.1715b14c@karst
We previously thought that allowing such cases can confuse users when they
specify DROP TABLES IN SCHEMA but that doesn't seem to be the case based
on discussion. This helps to uplift the restriction during
ALTER TABLE ... SET SCHEMA which used to ensure that we couldn't end up
with a publication having both a schema and the same schema's table.
To allow this, we need to forbid having any schema on a publication if
column lists on a table are specified (and vice versa). This is because
otherwise we still need a restriction during ALTER TABLE ... SET SCHEMA to
forbid cases where it could lead to a publication having both a schema and
the same schema's table with column list.
Based on suggestions by Peter Eisentraut.
Author: Hou Zhijie and Vignesh C
Reviewed-By: Peter Smith, Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 15, where it was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2729c9e2-9aac-8cda-f2f4-34f2bcc18f4e@enterprisedb.com
Because of inadequate filtering, the check triggers were confusing the
search for action triggers in GetForeignKeyActionTriggers and vice-versa
in GetForeignKeyCheckTriggers; this confusion results in seemingly
random assertion failures, and can have real impact in non-asserting
builds depending on catalog order. Change these functions so that they
correctly ignore triggers that are not relevant to each side.
To reduce the odds of further problems, do not break out of the
searching loop in assertion builds. This break is likely to hide bugs;
without it, we would have detected this bug immediately.
This problem was introduced by f4566345cf, so backpatch to 15 where
that commit first appeared.
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220908172029.sejft2ppckbo6oh5@awork3.anarazel.de
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4104619.1662663056@sss.pgh.pa.us
During ALTER TABLE ATTACH PARTITION, if the name of a parent's foreign
key constraint is already used on the partition, the code tries to
choose another one before the FK attributes list has been populated,
so the resulting constraint name was "<relname>__fkey" instead of
"<relname>_<attrs>_fkey". Repair, and add a test case.
Backpatch to 12. In 11, the code to attach a partition was not smart
enough to cope with conflicting constraint names, so the problem doesn't
exist there.
Author: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220901184156.738ebee5@karst
Using ATSimpleRecursion() in ATPrepCmd() to do so as bbb927b4db did is
not correct, because ATPrepCmd() can't distinguish between triggers that
may be cloned and those that may not, so would wrongly try to recurse
for the latter category of triggers.
So this commit restores the code in EnableDisableTrigger() that
86f575948c had added to do the recursion, which would do it only for
triggers that may be cloned, that is, row-level triggers. This also
changes tablecmds.c such that ATExecCmd() is able to pass the value of
ONLY flag down to EnableDisableTrigger() using its new 'recurse'
parameter.
This also fixes what seems like an oversight of 86f575948c that the
recursion to partition triggers would only occur if EnableDisableTrigger()
had actually changed the trigger. It is more apt to recurse to inspect
partition triggers even if the parent's trigger didn't need to be
changed: only then can we be certain that all descendants share the same
state afterwards.
Backpatch all the way back to 11, like bbb927b4db. Care is taken not
to break ABI compatibility (and that no catversion bump is needed.)
Co-authored-by: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Koval <d.koval@postgrespro.ru>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqG-cZT3XzGAnEgZQLoQbyfJApVwOTQaCaas1mhpf+4V5A@mail.gmail.com
Commit 9a974cbcba arranged to preserve
the relfilenode of user tables across pg_upgrade, but failed to notice
that pg_upgrade treats pg_largeobject as a user table and thus it needs
the same treatment. Otherwise, large objects will appear to vanish
after a pg_upgrade.
Commit d498e052b4 fixed this problem
by teaching pg_dump to UPDATE pg_class.relfilenode for pg_largeobject
and its index. However, because an UPDATE on the catalog rows doesn't
change anything on disk, this can leave stray files behind in the new
cluster. They will normally be empty, but it's a little bit untidy.
Hence, this commit arranges to do the same thing using DDL. Specifically,
it makes TRUNCATE work for the pg_largeobject catalog when in
binary-upgrade mode, and it then uses that command in binary-upgrade
dumps as a way of setting pg_class.relfilenode for pg_largeobject and
its index. That way, the old files are removed from the new cluster.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYYMXGUJO5GZk1-MByJGu_bB8CbOL6GJQC8=Bzt6x6vDg@mail.gmail.com
Detail and hint messages should be full sentences and should end with a
period, but some of the messages newly-introduced in v15 did not follow
that.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220719120948.GF12702@telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 15
The last usage of this argument in this routine can be tracked down to
7e2f9062, aka 11 years ago. Getting rid of this argument can also be an
advantage for extensions calling check_index_is_clusterable(), as it
removes any need to worry about the meaning of what a recheck would be
at this level.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220411140609.GF26620@telsasoft.com
Add support for unlogged sequences. Unlike for unlogged tables, this
is not a performance feature. It allows sequences associated with
unlogged tables to be excluded from replication.
A new subcommand ALTER SEQUENCE ... SET LOGGED/UNLOGGED is added.
An identity/serial sequence now automatically gets and follows the
persistence level (logged/unlogged) of its owning table. (The
sequences owned by temporary tables were already temporary through the
separate mechanism in RangeVarAdjustRelationPersistence().) But you
can still change the persistence of an owned sequence separately.
Also, pg_dump and pg_upgrade preserve the persistence of existing
sequences.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/04e12818-2f98-257c-b926-2845d74ed04f%402ndquadrant.com
