When failing to reindex a table or an index, reindexdb would generate an
extra error message related to a database failure, which is misleading.
Backpatch all the way down, as this has been introduced by 85e9a5a0.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOBaU_Yo61RwNO3cW6WVYWwH7EYMPuexhKqufb2nFGOdunbcHw@mail.gmail.com
Author: Julien Rouhaud
Reviewed-by: Daniel Gustafsson, Álvaro Herrera, Tom Lane, Michael
Paquier
Backpatch-through: 9.4
There's a very old race condition in our code to see whether a pre-existing
shared memory segment is still in use by a conflicting postmaster: it's
possible for the other postmaster to remove the segment in between our
shmctl() and shmat() calls. It's a narrow window, and there's no risk
unless both postmasters are using the same port number, but that's possible
during parallelized "make check" tests. (Note that while the TAP tests
take some pains to choose a randomized port number, pg_regress doesn't.)
If it does happen, we treated that as an unexpected case and errored out.
To fix, allow EINVAL to be treated as segment-not-present, and the same
for EIDRM on Linux. AFAICS, the considerations here are basically
identical to the checks for acceptable shmctl() failures, so I documented
and coded it that way.
While at it, adjust PGSharedMemoryAttach's API to remove its undocumented
dependency on UsedShmemSegAddr in favor of passing the attach address
explicitly. This makes it easier to be sure we're using a null shmaddr
when probing for segment conflicts (thus avoiding questions about what
EINVAL means). I don't think there was a bug there, but it required
fragile assumptions about the state of UsedShmemSegAddr during
PGSharedMemoryIsInUse.
Commit c09850992 may have made this failure more probable by applying
the conflicting-segment tests more often. Hence, back-patch to all
supported branches, as that was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22224.1557340366@sss.pgh.pa.us
create_merge_append_plan failed to honor the CP_EXACT_TLIST flag:
it would generate the expected targetlist but then it felt free to
add resjunk sort targets to it. This demonstrably leads to assertion
failures in v11 and HEAD, and it's probably just accidental that we
don't see the same in older branches. I've not looked into whether
there would be any real-world consequences in non-assert builds.
In HEAD, create_append_plan has sprouted the same problem, so fix
that too (although we do not have any test cases that seem able to
reach that bug). This is an oversight in commit 3fc6e2d7f which
invented the CP_EXACT_TLIST flag, so back-patch to 9.6 where that
came in.
convert_subquery_pathkeys would create pathkeys for subquery output
values if they match any EquivalenceClass known in the outer query
and are available in the subquery's syntactic targetlist. However,
the second part of that condition is wrong, because such values might
not appear in the subquery relation's reltarget list, which would
mean that they couldn't be accessed above the level of the subquery
scan. We must check that they appear in the reltarget list, instead.
This can lead to dropping knowledge about the subquery's sort
ordering, but I believe it's okay, because any sort key that the
outer query actually has any interest in would appear in the
reltarget list.
This second issue is of very long standing, but right now there's no
evidence that it causes observable problems before 9.6, so I refrained
from back-patching further than that. We can revisit that choice if
somebody finds a way to make it cause problems in older branches.
(Developing useful test cases for these issues is really problematic;
fixing convert_subquery_pathkeys removes the only known way to exhibit
the create_merge_append_plan bug, and neither of the test cases added
by this patch causes a problem in all branches, even when considering
the issues separately.)
The second issue explains bug #15795 from Suresh Kumar R ("could not
find pathkey item to sort" with nested DISTINCT queries). I stumbled
across the first issue while investigating that.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15795-fadb56c8e44ee73c@postgresql.org
When running a batch of VACUUM or ANALYZE commands on a given database,
there were cases where it is possible to have vacuumdb not report an
error where it actually should, leading to incorrect status results.
Author: Julien Rouhaud
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOBaU_ZuTwz7CtqLYJ1Ouuh272bTQPLN8b1bAPk0bCBm4PDMTQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.5
Previously it's documented that use of replication functions is
restricted to superusers. This is true for the functions which
use replication origin, but not for pg_logicl_emit_message() and
functions which use replication slot. For example, not only
superusers but also users with REPLICATION privilege is allowed
to use the functions for replication slot. This commit fixes
the documentation for the privileges required for those replication
functions.
Back-patch to 9.4 (all supported versions).
Author: Matsumura Ryo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/03040DFF97E6E54E88D3BFEE5F5480F74ABA6E16@G01JPEXMBYT04
Commit c0985099, later adjusted by commit 4ab02e81, probed 0.0.0.0
in addition to 127.0.0.1, for the benefit of Windows build farm
animals. It isn't really useful on Unix systems, and turned out to
be a bit inconvenient to users of some corporate firewall software.
Switch back to probing just 127.0.0.1 on non-Windows systems.
Back-patch to 9.6, like the earlier changes.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKG%2B21EPwfgs4m%2BtqyRtbVqkOUvP8QQ8sWk9%2Bh55Aub1H3A%40mail.gmail.com
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!)
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
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>
foreign_grouping_ok() is willing to put fairly arbitrary expressions into
the targetlist of a remote SELECT that's doing grouping or aggregation on
the remote side, including expressions that have no foreign component to
them at all. This is possibly a bit dubious from an efficiency standpoint;
but it rises to the level of a crash-causing bug if the expression is just
a Param or non-foreign Var. In that case, the expression will necessarily
also appear in the fdw_exprs list of values we need to send to the remote
server, and then setrefs.c's set_foreignscan_references will mistakenly
replace the fdw_exprs entry with a Var referencing the targetlist result.
The root cause of this problem is bad design in commit e7cb7ee14: it put
logic into set_foreignscan_references that IMV is postgres_fdw-specific,
and yet this bug shows that it isn't postgres_fdw-specific enough. The
transformation being done on fdw_exprs assumes that fdw_exprs is to be
evaluated with the fdw_scan_tlist as input, which is not how postgres_fdw
uses it; yet it could be the right thing for some other FDW. (In the
bigger picture, setrefs.c has no business assuming this for the other
expression fields of a ForeignScan either.)
The right fix therefore would be to expand the FDW API so that the
FDW could inform setrefs.c how it intends to evaluate these various
expressions. We can't change that in the back branches though, and we
also can't just summarily change setrefs.c's behavior there, or we're
likely to break external FDWs.
As a stopgap, therefore, hack up postgres_fdw so that it won't attempt
to send targetlist entries that look exactly like the fdw_exprs entries
they'd produce. In most cases this actually produces a superior plan,
IMO, with less data needing to be transmitted and returned; so we probably
ought to think harder about whether we should ship tlist expressions at
all when they don't contain any foreign Vars or Aggs. But that's an
optimization not a bug fix so I left it for later. One case where this
produces an inferior plan is where the expression in question is actually
a GROUP BY expression: then the restriction prevents us from using remote
grouping. It might be possible to work around that (since that would
reduce to group-by-a-constant on the remote side); but it seems like a
pretty unlikely corner case, so I'm not sure it's worth expending effort
solely to improve that. In any case the right long-term answer is to fix
the API as sketched above, and then revert this hack.
Per bug #15781 from Sean Johnston. Back-patch to v10 where the problem
was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15781-2601b1002bad087c@postgresql.org
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.
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
This commit adds the description that "non-exclusive" pg_start_backup
and pg_stop_backup can be executed even during recovery. Previously
it was wrongly documented that those functions are not allowed to be
executed during recovery.
Back-patch to 9.6 where non-exclusive backup API was added.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHGQGwEuAYrEX7Yhmf2MCrTK81HDkkg-JqsOUh8zw6+zYC5zzw@mail.gmail.com
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
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
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
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
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
