The GRANT reference page, which lists the default privileges for new
objects, failed to mention that USAGE is granted by default for data
types and domains. As a lesser sin, it also did not specify anything
about the initial privileges for sequences, FDWs, foreign servers,
or large objects. Fix that, and add a comment to acldefault() in the
probably vain hope of getting people to maintain this list in future.
Noted by Laurenz Albe, though I editorialized on the wording a bit.
Back-patch to all supported branches, since they all have this behavior.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1507620895.4152.1.camel@cybertec.at
Document better how to create custom collations and what locale strings
ICU accepts. Explain the ICU examples in more detail. Also update the
text on the CREATE COLLATION reference page a bit to take ICU more into
account.
This reverts commit 15bc038f9, along with the followon commits 1635e80d3
and 984c92074 that tried to clean up the problems exposed by bug #14825.
The result was incomplete because it failed to address parallel-query
requirements. With 10.0 release so close upon us, now does not seem like
the time to be adding more code to fix that. I hope we can un-revert this
code and add the missing parallel query support during the v11 cycle.
Back-patch to v10.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170922185904.1448.16585@wrigleys.postgresql.org
It drops objects outside information_schema that depend on objects
inside information_schema. For example, it will drop a user-defined
view if the view query refers to information_schema.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170831025345.GE3963697@rfd.leadboat.com
The blacklist mechanism added by the preceding commit directly fixes
most of the practical cases that the same-transaction test was meant
to cover. What remains is use-cases like
begin;
create type e as enum('x');
alter type e add value 'y';
-- use 'y' somehow
commit;
However, because the same-transaction test is heuristic, it fails on
small variants of that, such as renaming the type or changing its
owner. Rather than try to explain the behavior to users, let's
remove it and just have a rule that the newly added value can't be
used before being committed, full stop. Perhaps later it will be
worth the implementation effort and overhead to have a more accurate
test for type-was-created-in-this-transaction. We'll wait for some
field experience with v10 before deciding to do that.
Back-patch to v10.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170922185904.1448.16585@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Commit 15bc038f9 allowed ALTER TYPE ADD VALUE to be executed inside
transaction blocks, by disallowing the use of the added value later
in the same transaction, except under limited circumstances. However,
the test for "limited circumstances" was heuristic and could reject
references to enum values that were created during CREATE TYPE AS ENUM,
not just later. This breaks the use-case of restoring pg_dump scripts
in a single transaction, as reported in bug #14825 from Balazs Szilfai.
We can improve this by keeping a "blacklist" table of enum value OIDs
created by ALTER TYPE ADD VALUE during the current transaction. Any
visible-but-uncommitted value whose OID is not in the blacklist must
have been created by CREATE TYPE AS ENUM, and can be used safely
because it could not have a lifespan shorter than its parent enum type.
This change also removes the restriction that a renamed enum value
can't be used before being committed (unless it was on the blacklist).
Andrew Dunstan, with cosmetic improvements by me.
Back-patch to v10.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170922185904.1448.16585@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Explain more about how the different password authentication methods and
the password_encryption settings relate to each other, give some
upgrading advice, and set a better link from the release notes.
Reviewed-by: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
GRANT, REVOKE, and some allied commands allow the noise word GROUP
before a role name (cf. grantee production in gram.y). This option
does not exist elsewhere, but it had nonetheless snuck into the
documentation for ALTER ROLE, ALTER USER, and CREATE SCHEMA.
Seems to be a copy-and-pasteo in commit 31eae6028, which did expand the
syntax choices here, but not in that way. Back-patch to 9.5 where that
came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170916123750.8885.66941@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Since rsync 3.0.0 (released in 2008), the default way to enumerate
changes was changed in a way that makes it less likely that the hardlink
sync mode works. Since the whole point of the documented procedure is
for the hardlinks to work, change our docs to suggest using the
backwards compatibility switch.
Add item about number of times statement-level triggers will be fired.
Rearrange the compatibility items into (what seems to me) a less
random ordering.
Commit 0f79440fb introduced mechanism to keep AFTER STATEMENT triggers
from firing more than once per statement, which was formerly possible
if more than one FK enforcement action had to be applied to a given
table. Add a similar mechanism for BEFORE STATEMENT triggers, so that
we don't have the unexpected situation of firing BEFORE STATEMENT
triggers more often than AFTER STATEMENT.
As with the previous patch, back-patch to v10.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22315.1505584992@sss.pgh.pa.us
I noticed that there were exactly no complete examples of use of
a transition table in a trigger function, and no clear description
of just how you'd do it either. Improve that.
The standard says that all changes of the same kind (insert, update, or
delete) caused in one table by a single SQL statement should be reported
in a single transition table; and by that, they mean to include foreign key
enforcement actions cascading from the statement's direct effects. It's
also reasonable to conclude that if the standard had wCTEs, they would say
that effects of wCTEs applying to the same table as each other or the outer
statement should be merged into one transition table. We weren't doing it
like that.
Hence, arrange to merge tuples from multiple update actions into a single
transition table as much as we can. There is a problem, which is that if
the firing of FK enforcement triggers and after-row triggers with
transition tables is interspersed, we might need to report more tuples
after some triggers have already seen the transition table. It seems like
a bad idea for the transition table to be mutable between trigger calls.
There's no good way around this without a major redesign of the FK logic,
so for now, resolve it by opening a new transition table each time this
happens.
Also, ensure that AFTER STATEMENT triggers fire just once per statement,
or once per transition table when we're forced to make more than one.
Previous versions of Postgres have allowed each FK enforcement query
to cause an additional firing of the AFTER STATEMENT triggers for the
referencing table, but that's certainly not per spec. (We're still
doing multiple firings of BEFORE STATEMENT triggers, though; is that
something worth changing?)
Also, forbid using transition tables with column-specific UPDATE triggers.
The spec requires such transition tables to show only the tuples for which
the UPDATE trigger would have fired, which means maintaining multiple
transition tables or else somehow filtering the contents at readout.
Maybe someday we'll bother to support that option, but it looks like a
lot of trouble for a marginal feature.
The transition tables are now managed by the AfterTriggers data structures,
rather than being directly the responsibility of ModifyTable nodes. This
removes a subtransaction-lifespan memory leak introduced by my previous
band-aid patch 3c4359521.
In passing, refactor the AfterTriggers data structures to reduce the
management overhead for them, by using arrays of structs rather than
several parallel arrays for per-query-level and per-subtransaction state.
I failed to resist the temptation to do some copy-editing on the SGML
docs about triggers, above and beyond merely documenting the effects
of this patch.
Back-patch to v10, because we don't want the semantics of transition
tables to change post-release.
Patch by me, with help and review from Thomas Munro.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170909064853.25630.12825@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Document that rsync is an _optional_ way to upgrade standbys, suggest
rsync option --dry-run, and mention a way of upgrading one standby from
another using rsync. Also clarify some instructions by specifying if
they operate on the old or new clusters.
Reported-by: Stephen Frost, Magnus Hagander
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170914191250.GB6595@momjian.us
Backpatch-through: 9.5
The documentation claimed that one should send
"pg_same_as_startup_message" as the user name in the SCRAM messages, but
this did not match the actual implementation, so remove it.
This makes it clear that pg_upgrade standby upgrade instructions should
only be used in link mode, adds examples, and explains how rsync works
with links.
Reported-by: Andreas Joseph Krogh
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/VisenaEmail.6c.c0e592c5af4ef0a2.15e785dcb61@tc7-visena
Backpatch-through: 9.5
We already had a psql variable VERSION that shows the verbose form of
psql's own version. Add VERSION_NAME to show the short form (e.g.,
"11devel") and VERSION_NUM to show the numeric form (e.g., 110000).
Also add SERVER_VERSION_NAME and SERVER_VERSION_NUM to show the short and
numeric forms of the server's version. (We'd probably add SERVER_VERSION
with the verbose string if it were readily available; but adding another
network round trip to get it seems too expensive.)
The numeric forms, in particular, are expected to be useful for scripting
purposes, now that psql can do conditional tests.
Back-patch of commit 9ae9d8c1549c384dbdb8363e1d932b7311d25c56.
Fabien Coelho, reviewed by Pavel Stehule
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/alpine.DEB.2.20.1704020917220.4632@lancre
Commit 9915de6c1cb2 changed the default behavior of
DROP_REPLICATION_SLOT so that it would wait until any session holding
the slot active would release it, instead of raising an error. But
users are already depending on the original behavior, so revert to it by
default and add a WAIT option to invoke the new behavior.
Per complaint from Simone Gotti, in
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEvsy6Wgdf90O6pUvg2wSVXL2omH5OPC-38OD4Zzgk-FXavj3Q@mail.gmail.com
Previously, the parallel executor logic did reinitialization of shared
state within the ExecReScan code for parallel-aware scan nodes. This is
problematic, because it means that the ExecReScan call has to occur
synchronously (ie, during the parent Gather node's ReScan call). That is
swimming very much against the tide so far as the ExecReScan machinery is
concerned; the fact that it works at all today depends on a lot of fragile
assumptions, such as that no plan node between Gather and a parallel-aware
scan node is parameterized. Another objection is that because ExecReScan
might be called in workers as well as the leader, hacky extra tests are
needed in some places to prevent unwanted shared-state resets.
Hence, let's separate this code into two functions, a ReInitializeDSM
call and the ReScan call proper. ReInitializeDSM is called only in
the leader and is guaranteed to run before we start new workers.
ReScan is returned to its traditional function of resetting only local
state, which means that ExecReScan's usual habits of delaying or
eliminating child rescan calls are safe again.
As with the preceding commit 7df2c1f8d, it doesn't seem to be necessary
to make these changes in 9.6, which is a good thing because the FDW and
CustomScan APIs are impacted.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
The formatting of the sidebar element didn't carry over to the new tool
chain. Instead of inventing a whole new way of dealing with it, just
convert the one use to a "note".
As long as PQntuples, PQgetvalue, etc, use "int" for row numbers, we're
pretty much stuck with this limitation. The documentation formerly stated
that the result of PQntuples "might overflow on 32-bit operating systems",
which is just nonsense: that's not where the overflow would happen, and
if you did reach an overflow it would not be on a 32-bit machine, because
you'd have OOM'd long since.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+FnnTxyLWyjY1goewmJNxC==HQCCF4fKkoCTa9qR36oRAHDPw@mail.gmail.com
