Previously the documentation explains that WAL segment files
start at 000000010000000000000000. But the first WAL segment file
that initdb creates is 000000010000000000000001 not
000000010000000000000000. This change was caused by old
commit 8c843fff2d, but the documentation had not been updated
a long time.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Author: Fujii Masao
Reviewed-by: David Zhang
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHGQGwHOmGe2OqGOmp8cOfNVDivq7dbV74L5nUGr+3eVd2CU2Q@mail.gmail.com
Access to this module is granted to the pg_monitor role, not
pg_read_all_stats. (Given the view's performance impact,
it seems wise to be restrictive, so I think this was the
correct decision --- and anyway it was clearly intentional.)
Per bug #16279 from Philip Semanchuk.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16279-fcaac33c68aab0ab@postgresql.org
Creating a bunch of non-overlapping partial indexes is generally
a bad idea, so add an example saying not to do that.
Back-patch to v10. Before that, the alternative of using (real)
partitioning wasn't available, so that the tradeoff isn't quite
so clear cut.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKVFrvFY-f7kgwMRMiPLbPYMmgjc8Y2jjUGK_Y0HVcYAmU6ymg@mail.gmail.com
The GRANTED BY clause in GRANT/REVOKE ROLE has been there since 2005
but was never documented. I'm not sure now whether that was just an
oversight or was intentional (given the limited capability of the
option). But seeing that pg_dumpall does emit code that uses this
option, it seems like not documenting it at all is a bad idea.
Also, when we upgraded the syntax to allow CURRENT_USER/SESSION_USER
as the privilege recipient, the role form of GRANT was incorrectly
not modified to show that, and REVOKE's docs weren't touched at all.
Although I'm not that excited about GRANTED BY, the other oversight
seems serious enough to justify a back-patch.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3070.1581526786@sss.pgh.pa.us
Inherited queries perform access permission checks on the parent
table only. But there are two exceptions to this rule in v12 or before;
TRUNCATE and LOCK TABLE commands through a parent table check
the permissions on not only the parent table but also the children
tables. Previously these exceptions were not documented.
This commit adds the note about these exceptions, into the document.
Back-patch to v9.4. But we don't apply this commit to the master
because commit e6f1e560e4 already got rid of the exception about
inherited TRUNCATE and upcoming commit will do for the exception
about inherited LOCK TABLE.
Author: Amit Langote
Reviewed-by: Fujii Masao
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqHfTnMU6SUkyHxCmpHUKk7ERLHCR3vZVq19ZOQBjPBLmQ@mail.gmail.com
The docs are ambiguous as to which tables would be copied over when the
copy_data parameter is true in ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH PUBLICATION.
Make it clear that it only applies to tables which are new in the
publication.
Author: David Christensen (reword by Álvaro Herrera)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/95339420-7F09-4F8C-ACC0-8F1CFAAD9CD7@endpoint.com
Column defaults may be specified separately for each partition.
But INSERT via a partitioned table ignores those partition's default values.
The former is documented, but the latter restriction not.
This commit adds the note about that restriction into the document.
Back-patch to v10 where partitioning was introduced.
Author: Fujii Masao
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHGQGwEs-59omrfGF7hOHz9iMME3RbKy5ny+iftDx3LHTEn9sA@mail.gmail.com
Advancing a physical replication slot with pg_replication_slot_advance()
did not mark the slot as dirty if any advancing was done, preventing the
follow-up checkpoint to flush the slot data to disk. This caused the
advancing to be lost even on clean restarts. This does not happen for
logical slots as any advancing marked the slot as dirty. Per
discussion, the original feature has been implemented so as in the event
of a crash the slot may move backwards to a past LSN. This property is
kept and more documentation is added about that.
This commit adds some new TAP tests to check the persistency of physical
and logical slots after advancing across clean restarts.
Author: Alexey Kondratov, Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Craig Ringer
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/059cc53a-8b14-653a-a24d-5f867503b0ee@postgrespro.ru
Backpatch-through: 11
Only the parameter parallel_workers can be used directly with ALTER
TABLE.
Issue introduced in 6f3a13f, so backpatch down to 10.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200106025623.GA12066@telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Attempting to use CREATE INDEX, DROP INDEX or REINDEX with CONCURRENTLY
on a temporary relation with ON COMMIT actions triggered unexpected
errors because those operations use multiple transactions internally to
complete their work. Here is for example one confusing error when using
ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS:
ERROR: index "foo" already contains data
Issues related to temporary relations and concurrent indexing are fixed
in this commit by enforcing the non-concurrent path to be taken for
temporary relations even if using CONCURRENTLY, transparently to the
user. Using a non-concurrent path does not matter in practice as locks
cannot be taken on a temporary relation by a session different than the
one owning the relation, and the non-concurrent operation is more
effective.
The problem exists with REINDEX since v12 with the introduction of
CONCURRENTLY, and with CREATE/DROP INDEX since CONCURRENTLY exists for
those commands. In all supported versions, this caused only confusing
error messages to be generated. Note that with REINDEX, it was also
possible to issue a REINDEX CONCURRENTLY for a temporary relation owned
by a different session, leading to a server crash.
The idea to enforce transparently the non-concurrent code path for
temporary relations comes originally from Andres Freund.
Reported-by: Manuel Rigger
Author: Michael Paquier, Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Álvaro Herrera, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+u7OA6gP7YAeCguyseusYcc=uR8+ypjCcgDDCTzjQ+k6S9ksQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.4
We realized years ago that it's better for libpq to accept all
connection parameters syntactically, even if some are ignored or
restricted due to lack of the feature in a particular build.
However, that lesson from the SSL support was for some reason never
applied to the GSSAPI support. This is causing various buildfarm
members to have problems with a test case added by commit 6136e94dc,
and it's just a bad idea from a user-experience standpoint anyway,
so fix it.
While at it, fix some places where parameter-related infrastructure
was added with the aid of a dartboard, or perhaps with the aid of
the anti-pattern "add new stuff at the end". It should be safe
to rearrange the contents of struct pg_conn even in released
branches, since that's private to libpq (and we'd have to move
some fields in some builds to fix this, anyway).
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11297.1576868677@sss.pgh.pa.us
The "auth-methods" <sect1> used to include descriptions of all our
authentication methods. Commit 56811e573 promoted its child <sect2>'s
to <sect1>'s, which has advantages but also created some issues:
* The auth-methods page itself is essentially empty/useless.
* Links that pointed to "auth-methods" as a placeholder for all
auth methods were rendered a bit nonsensical.
* DocBook no longer provides a subsection table-of-contents here,
which formerly was a useful if terse summary of available auth methods.
To improve matters, add a handwritten list of all the auth methods.
Per gripe from Dave Cramer. Back-patch to v11 where the previous
commit came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADK3HH+xQLhcPgg=kWqfogtXGGZr-JdSo=x=WQC0PkAVyxUWyQ@mail.gmail.com
Back-patch commits 36d442a25 and 1f66c657f into all supported
branches. I'd considered doing this when putting in the latter
commit, but failed to pull the trigger. Now that we've had an
actual field complaint about the lack of such docs, let's do it.
Per bug #16158 from Piotr Jander. Original patches by Lætitia Avrot,
Patrick Francelle, and me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16158-7ccf2f74b3d655db@postgresql.org
Commit 5770172cb0c9df9e6ce27c507b449557e5b45124 wrote, incorrectly, that
certain schema usage patterns are secure against CREATEROLE users and
database owners. When an untrusted user is the database owner or holds
CREATEROLE privilege, a query is secure only if its session started with
SELECT pg_catalog.set_config('search_path', '', false) or equivalent.
Back-patch to 9.4 (all supported versions).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191013013512.GC4131753@rfd.leadboat.com
The existing text stated that "Default privileges that are specified
per-schema are added to whatever the global default privileges are for
the particular object type". However, that bare-bones observation is
not quite clear enough, as demonstrated by the complaint in bug #16124.
Flesh it out by stating explicitly that you can't revoke built-in
default privileges this way, and by providing an example to drive
the point home.
Back-patch to all supported branches, since it's been like this
from the beginning.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16124-423d8ee4358421bc@postgresql.org
Commit 6b76f1bb5 changed all the RADIUS auth parameters to be lists
rather than single values. But its use of SplitIdentifierString
to parse the list format was not very carefully thought through,
because that function thinks it's parsing SQL identifiers, which
means it will (a) downcase the strings and (b) truncate them to
be shorter than NAMEDATALEN. While downcasing should be harmless
for the server names and ports, it's just wrong for the shared
secrets, and probably for the NAS Identifier strings as well.
The truncation aspect is at least potentially a problem too,
though typical values for these parameters would fit in 63 bytes.
Fortunately, we now have a function SplitGUCList that is exactly
the same except for not doing the two unwanted things, so fixing
this is a trivial matter of calling that function instead.
While here, improve the documentation to show how to double-quote
the parameter values. I failed to resist the temptation to do
some copy-editing as well.
Report and patch from Marcos David (bug #16106); doc changes by me.
Back-patch to v10 where the aforesaid commit came in, since this is
arguably a regression from our previous behavior with RADIUS auth.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16106-7d319e4295d08e70@postgresql.org
The example of expansion of multiple views claimed that the resulting
subquery nest would not get fully flattened because of an aggregate
function. There's no aggregate in the example, though, only a user
defined function confusingly named MIN(). In a modern server, the
reason for the non-flattening is that MIN() is volatile, but I'm
unsure whether that was true back when this text was written.
Let's reduce the confusion level by using LEAST() instead (which
we didn't have at the time this example was created). And then
we can just say that the planner will flatten the sub-queries, so
the rewrite system doesn't have to.
Noted by Paul Jungwirth. This text is old enough to vote, so
back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+renyXZFnmp9PcvX1EVR2dR=XG5e6E-AELr8AHCNZ8RYrpnPw@mail.gmail.com
The previous statement that using a passphrase disables the ability to
change the server's SSL configuration without a server restart was no
longer completely true since the introduction of
ssl_passphrase_command_supports_reload.
Currently, postgres_fdw does not support preparing a remote transaction
for two-phase commit even in the case where the remote transaction is
read-only, but the old error message appeared to imply that that was not
supported only if the remote transaction modified remote tables. Change
the message so as to include the case where the remote transaction is
read-only.
Also fix a comment above the message.
Also add a note about the lack of supporting PREPARE TRANSACTION to the
postgres_fdw documentation.
Reported-by: Gilles Darold
Author: Gilles Darold and Etsuro Fujita
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier and Kyotaro Horiguchi
Backpatch-through: 9.4
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/08600ed3-3084-be70-65ba-279ab19618a5%40darold.net
Starting with PostgreSQL 12, pg_restore refuses to run when neither -d
nor -f are specified (c.f. commit 413ccaa74d9a), and it also makes "-f -"
mean the old implicit behavior of dumping to stdout. However, older
branches write to a file called ./- when invoked like that, making it
impossible to write pg_restore scripts that work across versions. This
is a partial backpatch of the aforementioned commit to all older
supported branches, providing an upgrade path.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191006190839.GE18030@telsasoft.com
This clarifies more how to use and how to take advantage of constraints
when attaching a new partition.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191028001207.GB23808@telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 10
This fixes multiple areas of the documentation:
- COPY for its past compatibility section.
- SET ROLE mentioning INHERITS instead of INHERIT
- PREPARE referring to stmt_name, that is not present.
- Extension documentation about format name with upgrade scripts.
Backpatch down to 9.4 for the relevant parts.
Author: Alexander Lakhin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/bf95233a-9943-b341-e2ff-a860c28af481@gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.4
