transformCreateStmt() adjusts the transformed statement's RangeVar
to specify the target schema explicitly, for the express reason
of making sure that auxiliary statements derived by parse
transformation operate on the right table. But the refactoring
I did in commit 502898192 got this wrong and passed the untransformed
RangeVar to expandTableLikeClause(). This could lead to assertion
failures or weird misbehavior if the wrong table was accessed.
Per report from Alexander Lakhin. Like the previous patch, back-patch
to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/05051f9d-b32b-cb35-6735-0e9f2ab86b5f@gmail.com
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
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.
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
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
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
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
nodeSubplan.c expects that the testexpr for a hashable ANY SubPlan
has the form of one or more OpExprs whose LHS is an expression of the
outer query's, while the RHS is an expression over Params representing
output columns of the subquery. However, the planner only went as far
as verifying that the clauses were all binary OpExprs. This works
99.99% of the time, because the clauses have the right shape when
emitted by the parser --- but it's possible for function inlining to
break that, as reported by PegoraroF10. To fix, teach the planner
to check that the LHS and RHS contain the right things, or more
accurately don't contain the wrong things. Given that this has been
broken for years without anyone noticing, it seems sufficient to just
give up hashing when it happens, rather than go to the trouble of
commuting the clauses back again (which wouldn't necessarily work
anyway).
While poking at that, I also noticed that nodeSubplan.c had a baked-in
assumption that the number of hash clauses is identical to the number
of subquery output columns. Again, that's fine as far as parser output
goes, but it's not hard to break it via function inlining. There seems
little reason for that assumption though --- AFAICS, the only thing
it's buying us is not having to store the number of hash clauses
explicitly. Adding code to the planner to reject such cases would take
more code than getting nodeSubplan.c to cope, so I fixed it that way.
This has been broken for as long as we've had hashable SubPlans,
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1549209182255-0.post@n3.nabble.com
This is like CVE-2018-1058 commit
582edc369cdbd348d68441fc50fa26a84afd0c1a. Today, a malicious user of a
publisher or subscriber database can invoke arbitrary SQL functions
under an identity running replication, often a superuser. This fix may
cause "does not exist" or "no schema has been selected to create in"
errors in a replication process. After upgrading, consider watching
server logs for these errors. Objects accruing schema qualification in
the wake of the earlier commit are unlikely to need further correction.
Back-patch to v10, which introduced logical replication.
Security: CVE-2020-14349
Commit 13838740f fixed some issues with step generation in partition
pruning, but there was yet another one: get_steps_using_prefix() assumes
that clauses in the passed-in prefix list are sorted in ascending order
of their partition key numbers, but the caller failed to ensure this for
range partitioning, which led to an assertion failure in debug builds.
Adjust the caller function to arrange the clauses in the prefix list in
the required order for range partitioning.
Back-patch to v11, like the previous commit.
Patch by me, reviewed by Amit Langote.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPmGK16jkXiFG0YqMbU66wte-oJTfW6D1HaNvQf%3D%2B5o9%3Dm55wQ%40mail.gmail.com
Instead of writing a query to psql's stdin, use -c. This avoids a
failure where psql exits before we write, seen a few times on the build
farm. Thanks to Tom Lane for the suggestion.
Back-patch to 11, where the LDAP tests arrived.
Reviewed-by: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKGLFmW%2BHQYPeKiwSp5sdFFHtFViCpw4Mh6yAgEx74r5-Cw%40mail.gmail.com
In the case of range partitioning, get_steps_using_prefix() assumes that
the passed-in prefix list contains at least one clause for each of the
partition keys earlier than one specified in the passed-in
step_lastkeyno, but the caller (ie, gen_prune_steps_from_opexps())
didn't take it into account, which led to a server crash or incorrect
results when the list contained no clauses for such partition keys, as
reported in bug #16500 and #16501 from Kobayashi Hisanori. Update the
caller to call that function only when the list created there contains
at least one clause for each of the earlier partition keys in the case
of range partitioning.
While at it, fix some other issues:
* The list to pass to get_steps_using_prefix() is allowed to contain
multiple clauses for the same partition key, as described in the
comment for that function, but that function actually assumed that the
list contained just a single clause for each of middle partition keys,
which led to an assertion failure when the list contained multiple
clauses for such partition keys. Update that function to match the
comment.
* In the case of hash partitioning, partition keys are allowed to be
NULL, in which case the list to pass to get_steps_using_prefix()
contains no clauses for NULL partition keys, but that function treats
that case as like the case of range partitioning, which led to the
assertion failure. Update the assertion test to take into account
NULL partition keys in the case of hash partitioning.
* Fix a typo in a comment in get_steps_using_prefix_recurse().
* gen_partprune_steps() failed to detect self-contradiction from
strict-qual clauses and an IS NULL clause for the same partition key
in some cases, producing incorrect partition-pruning steps, which led
to incorrect results of partition pruning, but didn't cause any
user-visible problems fortunately, as the self-contradiction is
detected later in the query planning. Update that function to detect
the self-contradiction.
Per bug #16500 and #16501 from Kobayashi Hisanori. Patch by me, initial
diagnosis for the reported issue and review by Dmitry Dolgov.
Back-patch to v11, where partition pruning was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16500-d1613f2a78e1e090%40postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16501-5234a9a0394f6754%40postgresql.org
Since we mustn't force an initdb in released branches, there is no
simple way to correct the markings of pg_subscription.subslotname
and pg_subscription_rel.srsublsn as attnotnull in existing pre-v13
installations.
Fortunately, released branches don't rely on attnotnull being correct
for much. The planner looks at it in relation_excluded_by_constraints,
but it'd be difficult to get that to matter for a query on a system
catalog. The only place where it's really problematic is in JIT's
slot_compile_deform(), which can produce incorrect code that crashes
if there are NULLs in an allegedly not-null column.
Hence, hack up slot_compile_deform() to be specifically aware of
these two incorrect markings and not trust them.
This applies to v11 and v12; the JIT code didn't exist before that,
and we've fixed the markings in v13.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/229396.1595191345@sss.pgh.pa.us
Commit b9c130a1f failed to apply the publisher-to-subscriber column
mapping while checking which columns were updated. Perhaps less
significantly, it didn't exclude dropped columns either. This could
result in an incorrect updated-columns bitmap and thus wrong decisions
about whether to fire column-specific triggers on the subscriber while
applying updates. In HEAD (since commit 9de77b545), it could also
result in accesses off the end of the colstatus array, as detected by
buildfarm member skink. Fix the logic, and adjust 003_constraints.pl
so that the problem is exposed in unpatched code.
In HEAD, also add some assertions to check that we don't access off
the ends of these newly variable-sized arrays.
Back-patch to v10, as b9c130a1f was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=79hKQ4++c5A060RYbjTHgiYTHz=fw6mptCtgghH2gJA@mail.gmail.com
reparameterize_path_by_child() failed to reparameterize BitmapAnd
and BitmapOr paths. This matters only if such a path is chosen as
the inside of a nestloop partition-wise join, where we have to pass
in parameters from the outside of the nestloop. If that did happen,
we generated a bad plan that would likely lead to crashes at execution.
This is not entirely reparameterize_path_by_child()'s fault though;
it's the victim of an ancient decision (my ancient decision, I think)
to not bother filling in param_info in BitmapAnd/Or path nodes. That
caused the function to believe that such nodes and their children
contain no parameter references and so need not be processed.
In hindsight that decision looks pretty penny-wise and pound-foolish:
while it saves a few cycles during path node setup, we do commonly
need the information later. In particular, by reversing the decision
and requiring valid param_info data in all nodes of a bitmap path
tree, we can get rid of indxpath.c's get_bitmap_tree_required_outer()
function, which computed the data on-demand. It's not unlikely that
that nets out as a savings of cycles in many scenarios. A couple
of other things in indxpath.c can be simplified as well.
While here, get rid of some cases in reparameterize_path_by_child()
that are visibly dead or useless, given that we only care about
reparameterizing paths that can be on the inside of a parameterized
nestloop. This case reminds one of the maxim that untested code
probably does not work, so I'm unwilling to leave unreachable code
in this function. (I did leave the T_Gather case in place even
though it's not reached in the regression tests. It's not very
clear to me when the planner might prefer to put Gather below
rather than above a nestloop, but at least in principle the case
might be interesting.)
Per bug #16536, originally from Arne Roland but with a test case
by Andrew Gierth. Back-patch to v11 where this code came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16536-2213ee0b3aad41fd@postgresql.org
An ALTER TABLE to validate a foreign key in which another subcommand
already caused a pending table rewrite could fail due to ALTER TABLE
attempting to validate the foreign key before the actual table rewrite
takes place. This situation could result in an error such as:
ERROR: could not read block 0 in file "base/nnnnn/nnnnn": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
The failure here was due to the SPI call which validates the foreign key
trying to access an index which is yet to be rebuilt.
Similarly, we also incorrectly tried to validate CHECK constraints before
the heap had been rewritten.
The fix for both is to delay constraint validation until phase 3, after
the table has been rewritten. For CHECK constraints this means a slight
behavioral change. Previously ALTER TABLE VALIDATE CONSTRAINT on
inheritance tables would be validated from the bottom up. This was
different from the order of evaluation when a new CHECK constraint was
added. The changes made here aligns the VALIDATE CONSTRAINT evaluation
order for inheritance tables to be the same as ADD CONSTRAINT, which is
generally top-down.
Reported-by: Nazli Ugur Koyluoglu, using SQLancer
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvp%3DZXv8wiRyk_0rWr00skhGkt8vXDrHJYXRMft3TjkxCA%40mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.5 (all supported versions)
The qual pushdown logic assumed that all Vars in a restriction clause
must be Vars referencing subquery outputs; but since we introduced
LATERAL, it's possible for such a Var to be a lateral reference instead.
This led to an assertion failure in debug builds. In a non-debug
build, there might be no ill effects (if qual_is_pushdown_safe decided
the qual was unsafe anyway), or we could get failures later due to
construction of an invalid plan. I've not gone to much length to
characterize the possible failures, but at least segfaults in the
executor have been observed.
Given that this has been busted since 9.3 and it took this long for
anybody to notice, I judge that the case isn't worth going to great
lengths to optimize. Hence, fix by just teaching qual_is_pushdown_safe
that such quals are unsafe to push down, matching the previous behavior
when it accidentally didn't fail.
Per report from Tom Ellis. Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200713175124.GQ8220@cloudinit-builder
SQL standard doesn't define numeric Inf or NaN values. It appears even more
ridiculous to support then in jsonpath assuming JSON doesn't support these
values as well. This commit forbids returning NaN from .double(), which was
previously allowed. NaN can't be result of inner-jsonpath computation over
non-NaNs. So, we can not expect NaN in the jsonpath output.
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/203949.1591879542%40sss.pgh.pa.us
Author: Alexander Korotkov
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Backpatch-through: 12
When jsonpath .double() method detects that numeric or string can't be
converted to double precision, it throws an error. This commit makes these
errors explicitly express the reason of failure.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdtqJtiSXkP7tOXez18NxhLUH_-75bL8%3DOce4Ki%2Bbv7V6Q%40mail.gmail.com
Author: Alexander Korotkov
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Backpatch-through: 12
Back-patch commits 91bdf499b and ffb4cee43, so that all branches
agree on when and how to do Windows CRLF conversion.
This should close the referenced thread. Thanks to Andrew Dunstan
for discussion/review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/412ae8da-76bb-640f-039a-f3513499e53d@gmx.net
The IANA time zone folk have deprecated use of a "posixrules" file in
the tz database. While for now it's our choice whether to keep
supplying one in our own builds, installations built with
--with-system-tzdata will soon be needing to cope with that file not
being present, at least on some platforms.
This causes a problem for the horology test, which expected the
nonstandard POSIX zone spec "CST7CDT" to apply pre-2007 US daylight
savings rules. That does happen if the posixrules file supplies such
information, but otherwise the test produces undesired results.
To fix, add an explicit transition date rule that matches 2005 practice.
(We could alternatively have switched the test to use some real time
zone, but it seems useful to have coverage of this type of zone spec.)
While at it, update a documentation example that also relied on
"CST7CDT"; use a real-world zone name instead. Also, document why
the zone names EST5EDT, CST6CDT, MST7MDT, PST8PDT aren't subject to
similar failures when "posixrules" is missing.
Back-patch to all supported branches, since the hazard is the same
for all.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1665379.1592581287@sss.pgh.pa.us
This was a danger only for --disable-spinlocks in combination with
atomic operations unsupported by the current platform.
While atomics.c was careful to signal that a separate semaphore ought
to be used when spinlock emulation is active, spin.c didn't actually
implement that mechanism. That's my (Andres') fault, it seems to have
gotten lost during the development of the atomic operations support.
Fix that issue and add test for nesting atomic operations inside a
spinlock.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200605023302.g6v3ydozy5txifji@alap3.anarazel.de
Backpatch: 9.5-
As s_lock_test, the already existing test for spinlocks, isn't run in
an automated fashion (and doesn't test a normal backend environment),
adding tests that are run as part of a normal regression run is a good
idea. Particularly in light of several recent and upcoming spinlock
related fixes.
Currently the new tests are run as part of the pre-existing
test_atomic_ops() test. That perhaps can be quibbled about, but for
now seems ok.
The only operations that s_lock_test tests but the new tests don't are
the detection of a stuck spinlock and S_LOCK_FREE (which is otherwise
unused, not implemented on all platforms, and will be removed).
This currently contains a test for more than INT_MAX spinlocks (only
run with --disable-spinlocks), to ensure the recent commit fixing a
bug with more than INT_MAX spinlock initializations is correct. That
test is somewhat slow, so we might want to disable it after a few
days.
It might be worth retiring s_lock_test after this. The added coverage
of a stuck spinlock probably isn't worth the added complexity?
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200606023103.avzrctgv7476xj7i@alap3.anarazel.de
Advancing a replication slot did not recompute the oldest xmin and LSN
values across replication slots, preventing resource removal like
segments not recycled at checkpoint time. The original commit that
introduced the slot advancing in 9c7d06d never did the update of those
oldest values, and b0afdca removed this code.
This commit adds a TAP test to check segment recycling with advancing
for physical slots, enforcing an extra segment switch before advancing
to check if the segment gets correctly recycled after a checkpoint.
Reported-by: Andres Freund
Reviewed-by: Alexey Kondratov, Kyptaro Horiguchi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200609171904.kpltxxvjzislidks@alap3.anarazel.de
Backpatch-through: 11
When there is just one non-null input value, and it is infinity or NaN,
aggregates such as stddev_pop and covar_pop should produce a NaN
result, because the calculation is not well-defined. They used to do
so, but since we adopted Youngs-Cramer aggregation in commit e954a727f,
they produced zero instead. That's an oversight, so fix it. Add tests
exercising these edge cases.
Affected aggregates are
var_pop(double precision)
stddev_pop(double precision)
var_pop(real)
stddev_pop(real)
regr_sxx(double precision,double precision)
regr_syy(double precision,double precision)
regr_sxy(double precision,double precision)
regr_r2(double precision,double precision)
regr_slope(double precision,double precision)
regr_intercept(double precision,double precision)
covar_pop(double precision,double precision)
corr(double precision,double precision)
Back-patch to v12 where the behavior change was accidentally introduced.
Report and patch by me; thanks to Dean Rasheed for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/353062.1591898766@sss.pgh.pa.us
When merging two NumericAggStates, the code missed adding the new
state's NaNcount unless its N was also nonzero; since those counts
are independent, this is wrong.
This would only have visible effect if some partial aggregate scans
found only NaNs while earlier ones found only non-NaNs; then we could
end up falsely deciding that there were no NaNs and fail to return a
NaN final result as expected. That's pretty improbable, so it's no
surprise this hasn't been reported from the field. Still, it's a bug.
I didn't try to produce a regression test that would show the bug,
but I did notice that these functions weren't being reached at all
in our regression tests, so I improved the tests to at least
exercise them. With these additions, I see pretty complete code
coverage on the aggregation-related functions in numeric.c.
Back-patch to 9.6 where this code was introduced. (I only added
the improved test case as far back as v10, though, since the
relevant part of aggregates.sql isn't there at all in 9.6.)
SSI's HeapCheckForSerializableConflictOut() test failed to correctly
handle conditions involving a concurrently inserted tuple which is later
concurrently updated by a separate transaction . A SELECT statement
that called HeapCheckForSerializableConflictOut() could end up using the
same XID (updater's XID) for both the original tuple, and the successor
tuple, missing the XID of the xact that created the original tuple
entirely. This only happened when neither tuple from the chain was
visible to the transaction's MVCC snapshot.
The observable symptoms of this bug were subtle. A pair of transactions
could commit, with the later transaction failing to observe the effects
of the earlier transaction (because of the confusion created by the
update to the non-visible row). This bug dates all the way back to
commit dafaa3ef, which added SSI.
To fix, make sure that we check the xmin of concurrently inserted tuples
that happen to also have been updated concurrently.
Author: Peter Geoghegan
Reported-By: Kyle Kingsbury
Reviewed-By: Thomas Munro
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/db7b729d-0226-d162-a126-8a8ab2dc4443@jepsen.io
Backpatch: All supported versions
If the flag value is lost, logical decoding would work the same way as
REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING, meaning that no old tuple values would be
included in the changes anymore produced by logical decoding.
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Euler Taveira
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200603065340.GK89559@paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 12
It's intentional that we don't allow values greater than 24 hours,
while we do allow "24:00:00" as well as "23:59:60" as inputs.
However, the range check was miscoded in such a way that it would
accept "23:59:60.nnn" with a nonzero fraction. For time or timetz,
the stored result would then be greater than "24:00:00" which would
fail dump/reload, not to mention possibly confusing other operations.
Fix by explicitly calculating the result and making sure it does not
exceed 24 hours. (This calculation is redundant with what will happen
later in tm2time or tm2timetz. Maybe someday somebody will find that
annoying enough to justify refactoring to avoid the duplication; but
that seems too invasive for a back-patched bug fix, and the cost is
probably unmeasurable anyway.)
Note that this change also rejects such input as the time portion
of a timestamp(tz) value.
Back-patch to v10. The bug is far older, but to change this pre-v10
we'd need to ensure that the logic behaves sanely with float timestamps,
which is possibly nontrivial due to roundoff considerations.
Doesn't really seem worth troubling with.
Per report from Christoph Berg.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200520125807.GB296739@msg.df7cb.de
A relation that has no storage initializes rd_tableam to NULL, which
caused those two functions to crash because of a pointer dereference.
Note that in 11 and older versions, this has always failed with a
confusing error "could not open file".
These two functions are used by the Postgres ODBC driver, which requires
them only when connecting to a backend strictly older than 8.1. When
connected to 8.2 or a newer version, the driver uses a RETURNING clause
instead whose support has been added in 8.2, so it should be possible to
just remove both functions in the future. This is left as an issue to
address later.
While on it, add more regression tests for those functions as we never
really had coverage for them, and for aggregates of TIDs.
Reported-by: Jaime Casanova, via sqlsmith
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJGNTeO93u-5APMga6WH41eTZ3Uee9f3s8dCpA-GSSqNs1b=Ug@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 12
In a logical replication subscriber, a table using REPLICA IDENTITY FULL
which has a primary key would try to use the primary key's index
available to scan for a tuple, but an assertion only assumed as correct
the case of an index associated to REPLICA IDENTITY USING INDEX. This
commit corrects the assertion so as the use of a primary key index is a
valid case.
Reported-by: Dilip Kumar
Analyzed-by: Dilip Kumar
Author: Euler Taveira
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Masahiko Sawada
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFiTN-u64S5bUiPL1q5kwpHNd0hRnf1OE-bzxNiOs5zo84i51w@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
pg_recvlogical merely called PQfinish(), so the backend sent messages
after the disconnect. When that caused EPIPE in internal_flush(),
before a LogicalConfirmReceivedLocation(), the next pg_recvlogical would
repeat already-acknowledged records. Whether or not the defect causes
EPIPE, post-disconnect messages could contain an ErrorResponse that the
user should see. One properly ends PGRES_COPY_OUT by repeating
PQgetCopyData() until it returns a negative value. Augment one of the
tests to cover the case of WAL past --endpos. Back-patch to v10, where
commit 7c030783a5bd07cadffc2a1018bc33119a4c7505 first appeared. Before
that commit, pg_recvlogical never reached PGRES_COPY_OUT.
Reported by Thomas Munro.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=1MzM2Z_xNe4foGwZ1a+MO_2S9oYDq3M5D11=JDU_+0Nw@mail.gmail.com
checkcondition_str() failed to report multiple matches for a prefix
pattern correctly: it would dutifully merge the match positions, but
then after exiting that loop, if the last prefix-matching word had
had no suitable positions, it would report there were no matches.
The upshot would be failing to recognize a match that the query
should match.
It looks like you need all of these conditions to see the bug:
* a phrase search (else we don't ask for match position details)
* a prefix search item (else we don't get to this code)
* a weight restriction (else checkclass_str won't fail)
Noted while investigating a problem report from Pavel Borisov,
though this is distinct from the issue he was on about.
Back-patch to 9.6 where phrase search was added.
Queries such as '!(foo<->bar)' failed to find matching rows when
implemented as a GiST or GIN index search. That's because of
failing to handle phrase searches as tri-valued when considering
a query without any position information for the target tsvector.
We can only say that the phrase operator might match, not that it
does match; and therefore its NOT also might match. The previous
coding incorrectly inverted the approximate phrase result to
decide that there was certainly no match.
To fix, we need to make TS_phrase_execute return a real ternary result,
and then bubble that up accurately in TS_execute. As long as we have
to do that anyway, we can simplify the baroque things TS_phrase_execute
was doing internally to manage tri-valued searching with only a bool
as explicit result.
For now, I left the externally-visible result of TS_execute as a plain
bool. There do not appear to be any outside callers that need to
distinguish a three-way result, given that they passed in a flag
saying what to do in the absence of position data. This might need
to change someday, but we wouldn't want to back-patch such a change.
Although tsginidx.c has its own TS_execute_ternary implementation for
use at upper index levels, that sadly managed to get this case wrong
as well :-(. Fixing it is a lot easier fortunately.
Per bug #16388 from Charles Offenbacher. Back-patch to 9.6 where
phrase search was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16388-98cffba38d0b7e6e@postgresql.org
The test is proving to have timing issues when looking at archive status
files on standbys after crash recovery, while other parts of the test
rely on pg_stat_archiver as a wait point to make sure that a given state
of the archiving is reached. The coverage is not heavily impacted by
the removal those extra tests.
Per reports from several buildfarm animals, like crake, piculet,
culicidae and francolin.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200424005929.GK33034@paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 9.5
78ea8b5 has fixed an issue related to the recycling of WAL segments on
standbys depending on archive_mode. However, it has introduced a
regression with the handling of WAL segments ready to be archived during
crash recovery, causing those files to be recycled without getting
archived.
This commit fixes the regression by tracking in shared memory if a live
cluster is either in crash recovery or archive recovery as the handling
of WAL segments ready to be archived is different in both cases (those
WAL segments should not be removed during crash recovery), and by using
this new shared memory state to decide if a segment can be recycled or
not. Previously, it was not possible to know if a cluster was in crash
recovery or archive recovery as the shared state was able to track only
if recovery was happening or not, leading to the problem.
A set of TAP tests is added to close the gap here, making sure that WAL
segments ready to be archived are correctly handled when a cluster is in
archive or crash recovery with archive_mode set to "on" or "always", for
both standby and primary.
Reported-by: Benoît Lobréau
Author: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
Reviewed-by: Kyotaro Horiguchi, Fujii Masao, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200331172229.40ee00dc@firost
Backpatch-through: 9.5
When a partition is detached, any triggers that had been cloned from its
parent were not properly disentangled from its parent triggers.
This resulted in triggers that could not be dropped because they
depended on the trigger in the trigger in the no-longer-parent table:
ALTER TABLE t DETACH PARTITION t1;
DROP TRIGGER trig ON t1;
ERROR: cannot drop trigger trig on table t1 because trigger trig on table t requires it
HINT: You can drop trigger trig on table t instead.
Moreover the table can no longer be re-attached to its parent, because
the trigger name is already taken:
ALTER TABLE t ATTACH PARTITION t1 FOR VALUES FROM (1)TO(2);
ERROR: trigger "trig" for relation "t1" already exists
The former is a bug introduced in commit 86f575948c77. (The latter is
not necessarily a bug, but it makes the bug more uncomfortable.)
To avoid the complexity that would be needed to tell whether the trigger
has a local definition that has to be merged with the one coming from
the parent table, establish the behavior that the trigger is removed
when the table is detached.
Backpatch to pg11.
Author: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20200408152412.GZ2228@telsasoft.com
In some corner cases, this could also lead to corrupted values being
included in the tuple.
Users who are concerned that they are affected by this should first
upgrade and then perform a base backup of their database and restore onto
an off-line server. They should then query each table with generated
columns to ensure there are no rows where the generated expression does
not match a newly calculated version of the GENERATED ALWAYS expression.
If no crashes occur and no rows are returned then you're not affected.
Fixes bug #16369.
Reported-by: Cameron Ezell
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16369-5845a6f1bef59884@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 12 (where GENERATED ALWAYS columns were added.)
