protocol.sgml documented the layout for Type messages, but completely
dropped the ball otherwise, failing to explain what they are, when
they are sent, or what they're good for. While at it, do a little
copy-editing on the description of Relation messages.
In passing, adjust the comment for apply_handle_type() to make it
clearer that we choose not to do anything when receiving a Type
message, not that we think it has no use whatsoever.
Per question from Stefen Hillman.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPgW8pMknK5pup6=T4a_UG=Cz80Rgp=KONqJmTdHfaZb0RvnFg@mail.gmail.com
libpq collects up to a bufferload of data whenever it reads data from
the socket. When SSL or GSS encryption is requested during startup,
any additional data received with the server's yes-or-no reply
remained in the buffer, and would be treated as already-decrypted data
once the encryption handshake completed. Thus, a man-in-the-middle
with the ability to inject data into the TCP connection could stuff
some cleartext data into the start of a supposedly encryption-protected
database session.
This could probably be abused to inject faked responses to the
client's first few queries, although other details of libpq's behavior
make that harder than it sounds. A different line of attack is to
exfiltrate the client's password, or other sensitive data that might
be sent early in the session. That has been shown to be possible with
a server vulnerable to CVE-2021-23214.
To fix, throw a protocol-violation error if the internal buffer
is not empty after the encryption handshake.
Our thanks to Jacob Champion for reporting this problem.
Security: CVE-2021-23222
The documentation was imprecise about the starting LSN used for WAL
streaming if nothing can be found in the local archive directory
defined with the pg_receivewal command, so be more talkative on this
matter.
Extracted from a larger patch by the same author.
Author: Ronan Dunklau, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18708360.4lzOvYHigE@aivenronan
Backpatch-through: 10
queries.sgml failed to mention the rather important point that
INTERSECT binds more tightly than UNION or EXCEPT. I thought
it could also use more discussion of the role of parentheses
in these constructs.
Per gripe from Christopher Painter-Wakefield.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/163338891727.12510.3939775743980651160@wrigleys.postgresql.org
The old URL was HTTP 404 and the git link didn't build. Also update two
other ICU links. If we ever get a good link we will add it back.
Reported-by: Anton Voloshin
Author: Laurenz Albe
Backpatch-through: 10
Be a little more vocal about the risks of remote collations not
matching local ones. Actually fixing these risks seems hard,
and I've given up on the idea that it might be back-patchable.
So the best we can do for the back branches is add documentation.
Per discussion of bug #16583 from Jiří Fejfar.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2438715.1632510693@sss.pgh.pa.us
OpenSSL 3 introduced the concept of providers to support modularization,
and moved the outdated ciphers to the new legacy provider. In case it's
not loaded in the users openssl.cnf file there will be a lot of regress
test failures, so add alternative outputs covering those.
Also document the need to load the legacy provider in order to use older
ciphers with OpenSSL-enabled pgcrypto.
This will be backpatched to all supported version once there is sufficient
testing in the buildfarm of OpenSSL 3.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/FEF81714-D479-4512-839B-C769D2605F8A@yesql.se
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Index vacuums may happen multiple times depending on the number of dead
tuples stored, as of maintenance_work_mem for a manual VACUUM. For
autovacuum, this is controlled by autovacuum_work_mem instead, if set.
The documentation mentioned the former, but not the latter in the
context of autovacuum.
Reported-by: Nikolai Berkoff
Author: Laurenz Albe, Euler Taveira
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/161545365522.10134.12195402324485546870@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 9.6
In ec34040af I added a mention that there was no point in setting
maintenance_work_limit to anything higher than 1GB for vacuum, but that
was incorrect as ginInsertCleanup() also looks at what
maintenance_work_mem is set to during VACUUM and that's not limited to
1GB.
Here I attempt to make it more clear that the limitation is only around
the number of dead tuple identifiers that we can collect during VACUUM.
I've also added a note to autovacuum_work_mem to mention this limitation.
I didn't do that in ec34040af as I'd had some wrong-headed ideas about
just limiting the maximum value for that GUC to 1GB.
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvpGwOAvunp-E-bN_rbAs3hmxMoasm5pzkYDbf36h73s7w@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.6, same as ec34040af
Since commit e462856a7a, pg_upgrade automatically creates a script to
update extensions, so mention that instead of ALTER EXTENSION.
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Copy-and-pasteo in 665c5855e, evidently. The 9.6 docs toolchain
whined about duplicate index entries, though our modern toolchain
doesn't. In any case, these GUCs surely are not about the
default settings of these values.
The error messages using the word "non-negative" are confusing
because it's ambiguous about whether it accepts zero or not.
This commit improves those error messages by replacing it with
less ambiguous word like "greater than zero" or
"greater than or equal to zero".
Also this commit added the note about the word "non-negative" to
the error message style guide, to help writing the new error messages.
When postgres_fdw option fetch_size was set to zero, previously
the error message "fetch_size requires a non-negative integer value"
was reported. This error message was outright buggy. Therefore
back-patch to all supported versions where such buggy error message
could be thrown.
Reported-by: Hou Zhijie
Author: Bharath Rupireddy
Reviewed-by: Kyotaro Horiguchi, Fujii Masao
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/OS0PR01MB5716415335A06B489F1B3A8194569@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Add pg_resetxlog -u option to set the oldest xid in pg_control.
Previously -x set this value be -2 billion less than the -x value.
However, this causes the server to immediately scan all relation's
relfrozenxid so it can advance pg_control's oldest xid to be inside the
autovacuum_freeze_max_age range, which is inefficient and might disrupt
diagnostic recovery. pg_upgrade will use this option to better create
the new cluster to match the old cluster.
Reported-by: Jason Harvey, Floris Van Nee
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190615183759.GB239428@rfd.leadboat.com, 87da83168c644fd9aae38f546cc70295@opammb0562.comp.optiver.com
Author: Bertrand Drouvot
Backpatch-through: 9.6
We had documentation of default_transaction_isolation et al,
but for some reason not of transaction_isolation et al.
AFAICS this is just an ancient oversight, so repair.
Per bug #17077 from Yanliang Lei.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17077-ade8e166a01e1374@postgresql.org
These are the same as world and install-world respectively, but without
building or installing the documentation. There are many reasons for
wanting to be able to do this, including speed, lack of documentation
building tools, and wanting to build other formats of the documentation.
Plans for simplifying the buildfarm client code include using these
targets.
Backpatch to all live branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/6a421136-d462-b043-a8eb-e75b2861f3df@dunslane.net
The syntax summaries for CREATE FUNCTION and allied commands
made it look like LEAKPROOF is an alternative to
IMMUTABLE/STABLE/VOLATILE, when of course it is an orthogonal
option. Improve that.
Per gripe from aazamrafeeque0. Thanks to David Johnston for
suggestions.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/162444349581.694.5818572718530259025@wrigleys.postgresql.org
In a synchronous logical setup, locking [user] catalog tables can cause
deadlock. This is because logical decoding of transactions can lock
catalog tables to access them so exclusively locking those in transactions
can lead to deadlock. To avoid this users must refrain from having
exclusive locks on catalog tables.
Author: Takamichi Osumi
Reviewed-by: Vignesh C, Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210222222847.tpnb6eg3yiykzpky%40alap3.anarazel.de
PersistHoldablePortal has long assumed that it should store the
entire output of the query-to-be-persisted, which requires rewinding
and re-reading the output. This is problematic if the query is not
stable: we might get different row contents, or even a different
number of rows, which'd confuse the cursor state mightily.
In the case where the cursor is NO SCROLL, this is very easy to
solve: just store the remaining query output, without any rewinding,
and tweak the portal's cursor state to match. Aside from removing
the semantic problem, this could be significantly more efficient
than storing the whole output.
If the cursor is scrollable, there's not much we can do, but it
was already the case that scrolling a volatile query's result was
pretty unsafe. We can just document more clearly that getting
correct results from that is not guaranteed.
There are already prohibitions in place on using SCROLL with
FOR UPDATE/SHARE, which is one way for a SELECT query to have
non-stable results. We could imagine prohibiting SCROLL when
the query contains volatile functions, but that would be
expensive to enforce. Moreover, it could break applications
that work just fine, if they have functions that are in fact
stable but the user neglected to mark them so. So settle for
documenting the hazard.
While this problem has existed in some guise for a long time,
it got a lot worse in v11, which introduced the possibility
of persisting plpgsql cursors (perhaps implicit ones) even
when they violate the rules for what can be marked WITH HOLD.
Hence, I've chosen to back-patch to v11 but not further.
Per bug #17050 from Алексей Булгаков.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17050-f77aa827dc85247c@postgresql.org
The following parameters have been imprecise, or incorrect, about their
description (PGC_POSTMASTER or PGC_SIGHUP):
- autovacuum_work_mem (docs, as of 9.6~)
- huge_page_size (docs, as of 14~)
- max_logical_replication_workers (docs, as of 10~)
- max_sync_workers_per_subscription (docs, as of 10~)
- min_dynamic_shared_memory (docs, as of 14~)
- recovery_init_sync_method (postgresql.conf.sample, as of 14~)
- remove_temp_files_after_crash (docs, as of 14~)
- restart_after_crash (docs, as of 9.6~)
- ssl_min_protocol_version (docs, as of 12~)
- ssl_max_protocol_version (docs, as of 12~)
This commit adjusts the description of all these parameters to be more
consistent with the practice used for the others.
Revewed-by: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/YK2ltuLpe+FbRXzA@paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Formerly we just relied on operator classes that assert longValuesOK
to eventually shorten the leaf value enough to fit on an index page.
That fails since the introduction of INCLUDE-column support (commit
09c1c6ab4), because the INCLUDE columns might alone take up more
than a page, meaning no amount of leaf-datum compaction will get
the job done. At least with spgtextproc.c, that leads to an infinite
loop, since spgtextproc.c won't throw an error for not being able
to shorten the leaf datum anymore.
To fix without breaking cases that would otherwise work, add logic
to spgdoinsert() to verify that the leaf tuple size is decreasing
after each "choose" step. Some opclasses might not decrease the
size on every single cycle, and in any case, alignment roundoff
of the tuple size could obscure small gains. Therefore, allow
up to 10 cycles without additional savings before throwing an
error. (Perhaps this number will need adjustment, but it seems
quite generous right now.)
As long as we've developed this logic, let's back-patch it.
The back branches don't have INCLUDE columns to worry about, but
this seems like a good defense against possible bugs in operator
classes. We already know that an infinite loop here is pretty
unpleasant, so having a defense seems to outweigh the risk of
breaking things. (Note that spgtextproc.c is actually the only
known opclass with longValuesOK support, so that this is all moot
for known non-core opclasses anyway.)
Per report from Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFiTN-uxP_soPhVG840tRMQTBmtA_f_Y8N51G7DKYYqDh7XN-A@mail.gmail.com
