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
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
The documentation says that the max length is 255 bytes, but
code inspection says it's actually 255 characters; and relevant
lengths are stored as uint16 so that that works.
These uint16 fields could be overflowed by excessively long input,
producing strange results. Complain for invalid input.
Likewise check for out-of-range values of the repeat counts in lquery.
(We don't try too hard on that one, notably not bothering to detect
if atoi's result has overflowed.)
Also detect length overflow in ltree_concat.
In passing, be more consistent about whether "syntax error" messages
include the type name. Also, clarify the documentation about what
the size limit is.
This has been broken for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches.
Nikita Glukhov, reviewed by Benjie Gillam and Tomas Vondra
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAP_rww=waX2Oo6q+MbMSiZ9ktdj6eaJj0cQzNu=Ry2cCDij5fw@mail.gmail.com
src/port/getopt_long.c failed on such an argument, always seeing it
as an unrecognized switch. This is unhelpful; better is to treat such
an item as a non-switch argument. That behavior is what we find in
GNU's getopt_long(); it's what src/port/getopt.c does; and it is
required by POSIX for getopt(), which getopt_long() ought to be
generally a superset of. Moreover, it's expected by ecpg, which
intends an argument of "-" to mean "read from stdin". So fix it.
Also add some documentation about ecpg's behavior in this area, since
that was miserably underdocumented. I had to reverse-engineer it
from the code.
Per bug #16304 from James Gray. Back-patch to all supported branches,
since this has been broken forever.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16304-c662b00a1322db7f@postgresql.org
This reverts commit cb2fd7eac285b1b0a24eeb2b8ed4456b66c5a09f. Per
numerous buildfarm members, it was incompatible with parallel query, and
a test case assumed LP64. Back-patch to 9.5 (all supported versions).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200321224920.GB1763544@rfd.leadboat.com
Until now, only selected bulk operations (e.g. COPY) did this. If a
given relfilenode received both a WAL-skipping COPY and a WAL-logged
operation (e.g. INSERT), recovery could lose tuples from the COPY. See
src/backend/access/transam/README section "Skipping WAL for New
RelFileNode" for the new coding rules. Maintainers of table access
methods should examine that section.
To maintain data durability, just before commit, we choose between an
fsync of the relfilenode and copying its contents to WAL. A new GUC,
wal_skip_threshold, guides that choice. If this change slows a workload
that creates small, permanent relfilenodes under wal_level=minimal, try
adjusting wal_skip_threshold. Users setting a timeout on COMMIT may
need to adjust that timeout, and log_min_duration_statement analysis
will reflect time consumption moving to COMMIT from commands like COPY.
Internally, this requires a reliable determination of whether
RollbackAndReleaseCurrentSubTransaction() would unlink a relation's
current relfilenode. Introduce rd_firstRelfilenodeSubid. Amend the
specification of rd_createSubid such that the field is zero when a new
rel has an old rd_node. Make relcache.c retain entries for certain
dropped relations until end of transaction.
Back-patch to 9.5 (all supported versions). This introduces a new WAL
record type, XLOG_GIST_ASSIGN_LSN, without bumping XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC. As
always, update standby systems before master systems. This changes
sizeof(RelationData) and sizeof(IndexStmt), breaking binary
compatibility for affected extensions. (The most recent commit to
affect the same class of extensions was
089e4d405d0f3b94c74a2c6a54357a84a681754b.)
Kyotaro Horiguchi, reviewed (in earlier, similar versions) by Robert
Haas. Heikki Linnakangas and Michael Paquier implemented earlier
designs that materially clarified the problem. Reviewed, in earlier
designs, by Andrew Dunstan, Andres Freund, Alvaro Herrera, Tom Lane,
Fujii Masao, and Simon Riggs. Reported by Martijn van Oosterhout.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20150702220524.GA9392@svana.org
I noticed that we completely failed to document the restriction
that an "anyrange" result type has to be inferred from an "anyrange"
input. The docs also were less clear than they could be about the
relationship between "anyrange" and "anyarray".
It's been like this all along, so back-patch.
This extends the fixes made in commit 085b6b667 to other SRFs with the
same bug, namely pg_logdir_ls(), pgrowlocks(), pg_timezone_names(),
pg_ls_dir(), and pg_tablespace_databases().
Also adjust various comments and documentation to warn against
expecting to clean up resources during a ValuePerCall SRF's final
call.
Back-patch to all supported branches, since these functions were
all born broken.
Justin Pryzby, with cosmetic tweaks by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200308173103.GC1357@telsasoft.com
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
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
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
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
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
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
