Previously when there were multiple timelines listed in the history file
of the recovery target timeline, archive recovery searched all of them,
starting from the newest timeline to the oldest one, to find the segment
to read. That is, archive recovery had to continuously fail scanning
the segment until it reached the timeline that the segment belonged to.
These scans for non-existent segment could be harmful on the recovery
performance especially when archival area was located on the remote
storage and each scan could take a long time.
To address the issue, this commit changes archive recovery so that
it skips scanning the timeline that the segment to read doesn't belong to.
Per discussion, back-patch to all supported versions.
Author: Kyotaro Horiguchi, tweaked a bit by Fujii Masao
Reviewed-by: David Steele, Pavel Suderevsky, Grigory Smolkin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16159-f5a34a3a04dc67e0@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200129.120222.1476610231001551715.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
TimelineHistoryRead and TimelineHistoryWrite wait events are reported
during waiting for a read and write of a timeline history file, respectively.
However, previously, TimelineHistoryRead wait event was not reported
while readTimeLineHistory() was reading a timeline history file. Also
TimelineHistoryWrite was not reported while writeTimeLineHistory() was
writing one line with the details of the timeline split, at the end.
This commit fixes these issues.
Back-patch to v10 where wait events for a timeline history file was added.
Author: Masahiro Ikeda
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Fujii Masao
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d11b0c910b63684424e06772eb844ab5@oss.nttdata.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.
We were acquiring object locks then deleting objects one by one, instead
of acquiring all object locks first, ignoring those that did not exist,
and then deleting all objects together. The latter is the correct
protocol to use, and what this commits changes to code to do. Failing
to follow that leads to "cache lookup failed for relation XYZ" error
reports when DROP OWNED runs concurrently with other DDL -- for example,
a session termination that removes some temp tables.
Author: Álvaro Herrera
Reported-by: Mithun Chicklore Yogendra (Mithun CY)
Reviewed-by: Ahsan Hadi, Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADq3xVZTbzK4ZLKq+dn_vB4QafXXbmMgDP3trY-GuLnib2Ai1w@mail.gmail.com
Attempting to use an installation path of Python that includes spaces
caused the MSVC builds to fail. This fixes the issue by using the same
quoting method as ad7595b for OpenSSL.
Author: Victor Wagner
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200430150608.6dc6b8c4@antares.wagner.home
Backpatch-through: 9.5
Writing a trailing semicolon in a macro is almost never the right thing,
because you almost always want to write a semicolon after each macro
call instead. (Even if there was some reason to prefer not to, pgindent
would probably make a hash of code formatted that way; so within PG the
rule should basically be "don't do it".) Thus, if we have a semi inside
the macro, the compiler sees "something;;". Much of the time the extra
empty statement is harmless, but it could lead to mysterious syntax
errors at call sites. In perhaps an overabundance of neatnik-ism, let's
run around and get rid of the excess semicolons whereever possible.
The only thing worse than a mysterious syntax error is a mysterious
syntax error that only happens in the back branches; therefore,
backpatch these changes where relevant, which is most of them because
most of these mistakes are old. (The lack of reported problems shows
that this is largely a hypothetical issue, but still, it could bite
us in some future patch.)
John Naylor and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CACPNZCs0qWTqJ2QUSGJ07B7uvAvzMb-KbG2q+oo+J3tsWN5cqw@mail.gmail.com
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
CreateRole() was passing a Value node, not a RoleSpec node, for the
newly-created role name when adding the role as a member of existing
roles for the IN ROLE syntax.
This mistake went unnoticed because the node in question is used only
for error messages and is not accessed on non-error paths.
In older pg versions (such as 9.5 where this was found), this results
in an "unexpected node type" error in place of the real error. That
node type check was removed at some point, after which the code would
accidentally fail to fail on 64-bit platforms (on which accessing the
Value node as if it were a RoleSpec would be mostly harmless) or give
an "unexpected role type" error on 32-bit platforms.
Fix the code to pass the correct node type, and add an lfirst_node
assertion just in case.
Per report on irc from user m1chelangelo.
Backpatch all the way, because this error has been around for a long
time.
Sticking this comment at the end of the last line was a bad idea: it's
not particularly readable, and it tempts pgindent to mess with line
breaks within the comment, which in turn reveals that win32tzlist.pl's
clean_displayname() does the wrong thing to clean up such line breaks.
While that's not hard to fix, there's basically no excuse for this
arrangement to begin with, especially since it makes the table layout
needlessly vary across back branches with different pgindent rules.
Let's just put the comment inside the braces, instead.
This commit just moves and reformats the comments, and updates
win32tzlist.pl to match; there's no actual data change.
Per odd-looking results from Juan José Santamaría Flecha.
Back-patch, since the point is to make win32_tzmap[] look the
same in all supported branches again.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5752.1587740484@sss.pgh.pa.us
DST law changes in Morocco and the Canadian Yukon.
Historical corrections for Shanghai.
The America/Godthab zone is renamed to America/Nuuk to reflect
current English usage; however, the old name remains available as a
compatibility link.
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
Checking if Subject Alternative Names (SANs) from a certificate match
with the hostname connected to leaked memory after each lookup done.
This is broken since acd08d7 that added support for SANs in SSL
certificates, so backpatch down to 9.5.
Author: Roman Peshkurov
Reviewed-by: Hamid Akhtar, Michael Paquier, David Steele
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALLDf-pZ-E3mjxd5=bnHsDu9zHEOnpgPgdnO84E2RuwMCjjyPw@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.5
index.c supposed that it could just use a PG_TRY block to clean up the
state associated with an active REINDEX operation. However, that code
doesn't run if we do a FATAL exit --- for example, due to a SIGTERM
shutdown signal --- while the REINDEX is happening. And that state does
get consulted during catalog accesses, which makes it problematic if we
do any catalog accesses during shutdown --- for example, to clean up any
temp tables created in the session.
If this combination of circumstances occurred, we could find ourselves
trying to access already-freed memory. In debug builds that'd fairly
reliably cause an assertion failure. In production we might often
get away with it, but with some bad luck it could cause a core dump.
Another possible bad outcome is an erroneous conclusion that an
index-to-be-accessed is being reindexed; but it looks like that would
be unlikely to have any consequences worse than failing to drop temp
tables right away. (They'd still get dropped by the next session that
uses that temp schema.)
To fix, get rid of the use of PG_TRY here, and instead hook into
the transaction abort mechanisms to clean up reindex state.
Per bug #16378 from Alexander Lakhin. This has been wrong for a
very long time, so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16378-7a70ca41b3ec2009@postgresql.org
Working on commit 1c455078b led me to check through FunctionCallInvoke
call sites to see if every one was being honest about (a) making sure
that fcinfo.isnull is initially false, and (b) checking its state after
the call. Sure enough, I found some violations.
The main one is that finalize_partialaggregate re-used serialfn_fcinfo
without resetting isnull, even though it clearly intends to cater for
serialfns that return NULL. There would only be an issue with a
non-strict serialfn, since it's unlikely that a serialfn would return
NULL for non-null input. We have no non-strict serialfns in core, and
there may be none in the wild either, which would account for the lack
of complaints. Still, it's clearly wrong, so back-patch that fix to
9.6 where finalize_partialaggregate was introduced.
Also, arrayfuncs.c and rowtypes.c contained various callers that were
not bothering to check for result nulls. While what's being called is
a comparison or hash function that probably *shouldn't* return null,
that's a lousy excuse for not having any check at all. There are
existing places that just Assert(!fcinfo->isnull) in comparable
situations, so I added that to the places that were calling btree
comparison or hash support functions. In the places calling
boolean-returning equality functions, it's quite cheap to have them
treat isnull as FALSE, so make those places do that. Also remove some
"locfcinfo->isnull = false" assignments that are unnecessary given the
assumption that no previous call returned null. These changes seem like
mostly neatnik-ism or debugging support, so I didn't back-patch.
The views pg_stat_progress_* had not gotten the memo that
pg_read_all_stats is supposed to be able to read all statistics. Also
make a pass over all text-returning pg_stat_xyz functions that could
return "insufficient privilege" and make sure they also respect
pg_read_all_status.
Reported-by: Andrey M. Borodin
Reviewed-by: Andrey M. Borodin, Kyotaro Horiguchi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/13145F2F-8458-4977-9D2D-7B2E862E5722@yandex-team.ru
We have repeatedly seen the buildfarm reach the Assert(false) in
SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority. This apparently is due to failing to
consider the possibility that the sync_standby_priority values in
shared memory might be inconsistent; but they will be whenever only
some of the walsenders have updated their values after a change in
the synchronous_standby_names setting. That function is vastly too
complex for what it does, anyway, so rewriting it seems better than
trying to apply a band-aid fix.
Furthermore, the API of SyncRepGetSyncStandbys is broken by design:
it returns a list of WalSnd array indexes, but there is nothing
guaranteeing that the contents of the WalSnd array remain stable.
Thus, if some walsender exits and then a new walsender process
takes over that WalSnd array slot, a caller might make use of
WAL position data that it should not, potentially leading to
incorrect decisions about whether to release transactions that
are waiting for synchronous commit.
To fix, replace SyncRepGetSyncStandbys with a new function
SyncRepGetCandidateStandbys that copies all the required data
from shared memory while holding the relevant mutexes. If the
associated walsender process then exits, this data is still safe to
make release decisions with, since we know that that much WAL *was*
sent to a valid standby server. This incidentally means that we no
longer need to treat sync_standby_priority as protected by the
SyncRepLock rather than the per-walsender mutex.
SyncRepGetSyncStandbys is no longer used by the core code, so remove
it entirely in HEAD. However, it seems possible that external code is
relying on that function, so do not remove it from the back branches.
Instead, just remove the known-incorrect Assert. When the bug occurs,
the function will return a too-short list, which callers should treat
as meaning there are not enough sync standbys, which seems like a
reasonably safe fallback until the inconsistent state is resolved.
Moreover it's bug-compatible with what has been happening in non-assert
builds. We cannot do anything about the walsender-replacement race
condition without an API/ABI break.
The bogus assertion exists back to 9.6, but 9.6 is sufficiently
different from the later branches that the patch doesn't apply at all.
I chose to just remove the bogus assertion in 9.6, feeling that the
probability of a bad outcome from the walsender-replacement race
condition is too low to justify rewriting the whole patch for 9.6.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/21519.1585272409@sss.pgh.pa.us
Apparently in some language versions of Visual Studio nmake outputs some
material after the version number and before the end of the line. This
has been seen in Chinese versions. Therefore, we no longer demand that
the version string comes at the end of a line.
Per complaint from Cuiping Lin.
Backpatch to all live branches.
fixup_whole_row_references() did the wrong thing with a dropped column,
resulting in a commit-time warning about a cache reference leak.
I (tgl) added a test case exercising this, but back-patched the test
only as far as v10; the patch didn't apply cleanly to 9.6 and it
didn't seem worth the trouble to adapt it. The bug is pretty old
though, so apply the code change all the way back.
Michael Luo, with cosmetic improvements by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/BYAPR08MB5606D1453D7F50E2AF4D2FD29AD80@BYAPR08MB5606.namprd08.prod.outlook.com
ExecReScanHashJoin will destroy the join's hash table if it expects
that the inner relation will produce different rows on rescan.
Up to now it's not bothered to clear the additional pointer to that
hash table that exists in the child HashState node. However, it's
possible for the query to terminate without building a fresh hash
table (this happens if the outer relation is found to be empty
during the final rescan). So we can end with a dangling pointer
to a deleted hash table. That was harmless originally, but since
9.0 EXPLAIN ANALYZE has used that pointer to print hash table
statistics. In debug builds this reproducibly results in garbage
statistics. In non-debug builds there's frequently no ill effects,
but in principle one could get wrong EXPLAIN ANALYZE output, or
perhaps even a crash if free() has released the hashtable memory
back to the OS.
To fix, just make sure we clear the additional pointer when destroying
the hash table. In problematic cases, EXPLAIN ANALYZE will then print
no hashtable statistics (reverting to its pre-9.0 behavior). This isn't
ideal, but since the problem manifests only in unusual corner cases,
it's hard to justify taking any risks to do better in the back
branches. A follow-on patch will improve matters in HEAD.
Konstantin Knizhnik and Tom Lane, per diagnosis by Thomas Munro
of a trouble report from Alvaro Herrera.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200323165059.GA24950@alvherre.pgsql
The docs explained that a SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock is needed on the
referenced table, but failed to say the same about the table being
altered. Since the page says that ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock is taken
unless otherwise stated, this left readers with the wrong conclusion.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/834603375.3470346.1586482852542@mail.yahoo.com
CREATE GROUP is an exact alias for CREATE ROLE, and CREATE USER is
almost an exact alias, as can easily be confirmed by checking the
code. So the man page syntax descriptions ought to match up. The
last few additions of role options seem to have forgotten to update
create_group.sgml, though. Fix that, and add a naggy reminder to
create_role.sgml in hopes of not forgetting again.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/158647836143.655.9853963229391401576@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Suppress a probably-meaningless uninitialized-variable warning
(induced by my previous patch, I'm sorry to say).
Improve mark_hl_fragments()'s test for overlapping cover strings:
it failed to consider the possibility that the current string is
strictly within another one. That's unlikely given the preceding
splitting into MaxWords fragments, but I don't think it's impossible.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16345-2e0cf5cddbdcd3b4@postgresql.org
This code could produce very poor results when asked to highlight a
string based on a query using phrase-match operators. The root cause
is that hlCover(), which is supposed to find a minimal substring that
matches the query, was written assuming that word position is not
significant. I'm only 95% convinced that its algorithm was correct even
for plain AND/OR queries; but it definitely fails completely for phrase
matches, causing it to possibly not identify a cover string at all.
Hence, rewrite hlCover() with a less-tense algorithm that just tries
all the possible substrings, earlier and shorter ones first. (This is
not as bad as it sounds performance-wise, because all of the string
matching has been done already: the repeated tsquery match checks
boil down to pointer comparisons.)
Unfortunately, since that approach produces more candidate cover
strings than before, it also exposes that there were bugs in the
heuristics in mark_hl_words() for selecting a best cover string.
Fixes there include:
* Do not apply the ShortWord filter to words that appear in the query.
* Remove a misguided optimization for quickly rejecting a cover.
* Fix order-of-operation bug that could cause computation of a
wrong figure of merit (poslen) when shortening a cover.
* Change the preference rule so that candidate headlines that do not
include their whole cover string (after MaxWords trimming) are lowest
priority, since they may not actually satisfy the user's query.
This results in some changes in existing regression test cases,
but they all seem reasonable. Note in particular that the tests
involving strings like "1 2 3" were previously being affected by
the ShortWord filter, masking the normal matching behavior.
Per bug #16345 from Augustinas Jokubauskas; the new test cases are
based on that example. Back-patch to 9.6 where phrase search was
added to tsquery.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16345-2e0cf5cddbdcd3b4@postgresql.org
This code was woefully unreadable and under-commented. Try to improve
matters by adding comments, using some macros to make complicated
if-tests more readable, using boolean type where appropriate, etc.
There are a couple of tiny coding improvements too, but this commit
includes (I hope) no behavioral change.
Nonetheless, back-patch as far as 9.6, because a followup bug-fixing
commit depends on this.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16345-2e0cf5cddbdcd3b4@postgresql.org
Repair an oversight in commit 8728b2c70: if we're postponing restore
of event triggers to the end, we must also postpone restoring any
comments on them, since of course we cannot create the comments first.
(This opens yet another opportunity for an event trigger to bollix
the restore, but there's no help for that.)
Per bug #16346 from Alexander Lakhin.
Like the previous commit, back-patch to all supported branches.
Hamid Akhtar and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16346-6210ad7a0ea81be1@postgresql.org
Our documentation describes four allowed input syntaxes for circles,
but the regression tests tried only three ... with predictable
consequences. Remarkably, this has been wrong since the circle
datatype was added in 1997, but nobody noticed till now.
David Zhang, with some help from me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/332c47fa-d951-7574-b5cc-a8f7f7201202@highgo.ca
Since the existing bit number argument can't exceed INT32_MAX, it's
not possible for these functions to manipulate bits beyond the first
256MB of a bytea value. However, it'd be good if they could do at
least that much, and not fall over entirely for longer bytea values.
Adjust the comparisons to be done in int64 arithmetic so that works.
Also tweak the error reports to show sane values in case of overflow.
Also add some test cases to improve the miserable code coverage
of these functions.
Apply patch to back branches only; HEAD has a better solution
as of commit 26a944cf2.
Extracted from a much larger patch by Movead Li
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200312115135445367128@highgo.ca
A table rewritten by ALTER TABLE would lose tracking of an index usable
for CLUSTER. This setting is tracked by pg_index.indisclustered and is
controlled by ALTER TABLE, so some extra work was needed to restore it
properly. Note that ALTER TABLE only marks the index that can be used
for clustering, and does not do the actual operation.
Author: Amit Langote, Justin Pryzby
Reviewed-by: Ibrar Ahmed, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200202161718.GI13621@telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 9.5
There's a very low risk that RecentGlobalXmin could be far enough in
the past to be older than relfrozenxid, or even wrapped
around. Luckily the consequences of that having happened wouldn't be
too bad - the page wouldn't be pruned for a while.
Avoid that risk by using TransactionXmin instead. As that's announced
via MyPgXact->xmin, it is protected against wrapping around (see code
comments for details around relfrozenxid).
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200328213023.s4eyijhdosuc4vcj@alap3.anarazel.de
Backpatch: 9.5-
entryGetItem()'s three code paths each contained bugs associated
with filtering the entries for gin_fuzzy_search_limit.
The posting-tree path failed to advance "advancePast" after having
decided to filter an item. If we ran out of items on the current
page and needed to advance to the next, what would actually happen
is that entryLoadMoreItems() would re-load the same page. Eventually,
the random dropItem() test would accept one of the same items it'd
previously rejected, and we'd move on --- but it could take awhile
with small gin_fuzzy_search_limit. To add insult to injury, this
case would inevitably cause entryLoadMoreItems() to decide it needed
to re-descend from the root, making things even slower.
The posting-list path failed to implement gin_fuzzy_search_limit
filtering at all, so that all entries in the posting list would
be returned.
The bitmap-result path used a "gotitem" variable that it failed to
update in the one place where it'd actually make a difference, ie
at the one "continue" statement. I think this was unreachable in
practice, because if we'd looped around then it shouldn't be the
case that the entries on the new page are before advancePast.
Still, the "gotitem" variable was contributing nothing to either
clarity or correctness, so get rid of it.
Refactor all three loops so that the termination conditions are
more alike and less unreadable.
The code coverage report showed that we had no coverage at all for
the re-descend-from-root code path in entryLoadMoreItems(), which
seems like a very bad thing, so add a test case that exercises it.
We also had exactly no coverage for gin_fuzzy_search_limit, so add a
simplistic test case that at least hits those code paths a little bit.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Adé Heyward and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEknJCdS-dE1Heddptm7ay2xTbSeADbkaQ8bU2AXRCVC2LdtKQ@mail.gmail.com
contrib/lo's lo_manage() thought it could use
trigdata->tg_trigger->tgname in its error message about
not being called as a trigger. That naturally led to a core dump.
unique_key_recheck() figured it could Assert that fcinfo->context
is a TriggerData node in advance of having checked that it's
being called as a trigger. That's harmless in production builds,
and perhaps not that easy to reach in any case, but it's logically
wrong.
The first of these per bug #16340 from William Crowell;
the second from manual inspection of other CALLED_AS_TRIGGER
call sites.
Back-patch the lo.c change to all supported branches, the
other to v10 where the thinko crept in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16340-591c7449dc7c8c47@postgresql.org
A join that was added in commit 9b2009c4cf that did not use the INNER
keyword but the existing query used it. It was cleaner to remove the
existing INNER keyword.
Reported-by: Peter Eisentraut
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/a1ffbfda-59d2-5732-e5fb-3df8582b6434@2ndquadrant.com
Backpatch-through: 9.5
