These two SQL functions are aliases for the same C function, so this
change has no semantic effect. However, because we dropped the
numeric_fac alias in HEAD (commit 76f412ab3), operator definitions
based on that one don't port forward, causing problems for cross-version
upgrade tests based on the regression database.
Patch all active back branches to dodge the problem.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/449144.1600439950@sss.pgh.pa.us
For parallel btree scan to work for array of scan keys, it should reach
BTPARALLEL_DONE state once for every distinct combination of array keys.
This is required to ensure that the parallel workers don't try to seize
blocks at the same time for different scan keys. We missed to update this
state when we discovered that the scan keys can't be satisfied.
Author: James Hunter
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Tested-by: Justin Pryzby
Backpatch-through: 10, where it was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4248CABC-25E3-4809-B4D0-128E1BAABC3C@amazon.com
The code recorded cache invalidation events by zeroing the "localreloid"
field of affected cache entries. However, it's possible for an inval
event to occur even while we have the entry open and locked. So an
ill-timed inval could result in "cache lookup failed for relation 0"
errors, if the worker's code tried to use the cleared field. We can
fix that by creating a separate bool field to record whether the entry
needs to be revalidated. (In the back branches, cram the bool into
what had been padding space, to avoid an ABI break in the somewhat
unlikely event that any extension is looking at this struct.)
Also, rearrange the logic in logicalrep_rel_open so that it
does the right thing in cases where table_open would fail.
We should retry the lookup by name in that case, but we didn't.
The real-world impact of this is probably small. In the first place,
the error conditions are very low probability, and in the second place,
the worker would just exit and get restarted. We only noticed because
in a CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS build, the failure can occur repeatedly,
preventing the worker from making progress. Nonetheless, it's clearly
a bug, and it impedes a useful type of testing; so back-patch to v10
where this code was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1032727.1600096803@sss.pgh.pa.us
transformCreateStmt() adjusts the transformed statement's RangeVar
to specify the target schema explicitly, for the express reason
of making sure that auxiliary statements derived by parse
transformation operate on the right table. But the refactoring
I did in commit 502898192 got this wrong and passed the untransformed
RangeVar to expandTableLikeClause(). This could lead to assertion
failures or weird misbehavior if the wrong table was accessed.
Per report from Alexander Lakhin. Like the previous patch, back-patch
to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/05051f9d-b32b-cb35-6735-0e9f2ab86b5f@gmail.com
Bring the signal handling for startup-packet collection into line
with the policy established in commits bedadc732 and 8e19a8264,
namely don't risk running atexit callbacks when handling SIGQUIT.
Ideally, we'd not do so for SIGTERM or timeout interrupts either,
but that change seems a bit too risky for the back branches.
For now, just improve the comments in this area to describe the risk.
Also relocate where BackendInitialize re-disables these interrupts,
to minimize the code span where they're active. This doesn't buy
a whole lot of safety, but it can't hurt.
In passing, rename startup_die() to remove confusion about whether
it is for the startup process.
Like the previous commits, back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1850884.1599601164@sss.pgh.pa.us
We have had multiple reports that point to the
'@colReorder=latn-digit' collation customization being buggy. We have
reported this to ICU and are waiting for a fix. In the meantime,
remove references to this from the documentation and replace it by
another reordering example. Apparently, many users have been picking
up this example specifically from the documentation.
Author: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/153201618542.1404.3611626898935613264%40wrigleys.postgresql.org
Commit 8e19a8264 changed the SIGQUIT handlers of almost all server
processes not to run atexit callbacks. The archiver process was
skipped, perhaps because it's not connected to shared memory; but
it's just as true here that running atexit callbacks in a signal
handler is unsafe. So let's make it work like the rest.
In HEAD and v13, we can use the common SignalHandlerForCrashExit
handler. Before that, just tweak pgarch_exit to use _exit(2)
explicitly.
Like the previous commit, back-patch to all supported branches.
Kyotaro Horiguchi, back-patching by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1850884.1599601164@sss.pgh.pa.us
We reported the wrong types when complaining that an aggregate's
moving-aggregate implementation is inconsistent with its regular
implementation.
This was wrong since the feature was introduced, so back-patch
to all supported branches.
Jeff Janes
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMkU=1x808LH=LPhZp9mNSP0Xd1xDqEd+XeGcvEe48dfE6xV=A@mail.gmail.com
This is duplicative of an lstat that was just done by the calling
function (traverse_datadir), besides which we weren't really doing
anything with the results. There's not much point in checking to
see if someone removed the file since the previous lstat, since the
FILE_ACTION_REMOVE code would have to deal with missing-file cases
anyway. Moreover, the "exists = false" assignment was a dead store;
nothing was done with that value later.
A syscall saved is a syscall earned, so back-patch to 9.5
where this code was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1221796.1599329320@sss.pgh.pa.us
I happened to notice that the new test case I added in b55b4dad9
falls over if one runs "make check" repeatedly; though not in branches
after v10. That's because it was assuming that tmp_check/pgpass
wouldn't exist already. However, it's only been since v11 that the
Makefiles forcibly remove all of tmp_check/ before starting a TAP run.
This fix to unlink the file is therefore strictly necessary only in
v10 ... but it seems wisest to do it across the board, rather than
let the test rely on external logic to get the conditions right.
Commit 3f60f690f only partially fixed the broken-status-tracking
issue in LogicalRepApplyLoop: we need ping_sent to have the same
lifetime as last_recv_timestamp. The effects are much less serious
than what that commit fixed, though. AFAICS this would just lead to
extra ping requests being sent, once per second until the sender
responds. Still, it's a bug, so backpatch to v10 as before.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/959627.1599248476@sss.pgh.pa.us
The "DROP ACCESS METHOD gist2" test will require locking the index
to be dropped and then its table; while most ordinary operations
lock a table first then its index. While no concurrent test scripts
should be touching fast_emp4000, autovacuum might chance to be
processing that table when the DROP runs, resulting in a deadlock
failure. This is pretty rare but we see it in the buildfarm from
time to time.
To fix, acquire a lock on fast_emp4000 before issuing the DROP.
Since the point of the exercise is mostly to prevent buildfarm
failures, back-patch to 9.6 where this test was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/839004.1599185607@sss.pgh.pa.us
Because sigsetjmp() will restore the initial state with signals blocked,
the code path in bgworker.c for reporting an error and exiting would
execute that way. Usually this is fairly harmless; but if a parallel
worker had an error message exceeding the shared-memory communication
buffer size (16K) it would lock up, because it would wait for a
resume-sending signal from its parallel leader which it would never
detect.
To fix, just unblock signals at the appropriate point.
This can be shown to fail back to 9.6. The lack of parallel query
infrastructure makes it difficult to provide a simple test case for
9.5; but I'm pretty sure the issue exists in some form there as well,
so apply the code change there too.
Vignesh C, reviewed by Bharath Rupireddy, Robert Haas, and myself
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALDaNm1d1hHPZUg3xU4XjtWBOLCrA+-2cJcLpw-cePZ=GgDVfA@mail.gmail.com
We were already raising an error for DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY on a
partitioned table, albeit a different and confusing one:
ERROR: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY must be first action in transaction
Change that to throw a more comprehensible error:
ERROR: cannot drop partitioned index \"%s\" concurrently
Michael Paquier authored the test case for indexes on temporary
partitioned tables.
Backpatch to 11, where indexes on partitioned tables were added.
Reported-by: Jan Mussler <jan.mussler@zalando.de>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16594-d2956ca909585067@postgresql.org
Historically there's been a hard-wired assumption here that no line of
a .pgpass file could be as long as NAMEDATALEN*5 bytes. That's a bit
shaky to start off with, because (a) there's no reason to suppose that
host names fit in NAMEDATALEN, and (b) this figure fails to allow for
backslash escape characters. However, it fails completely if someone
wants to use a very long password, and we're now hearing reports of
people wanting to use "security tokens" that can run up to several
hundred bytes. Another angle is that the file is specified to allow
comment lines, but there's no reason to assume that long comment lines
aren't possible.
Rather than guessing at what might be a more suitable limit, let's
replace the fixed-size buffer with an expansible PQExpBuffer. That
adds one malloc/free cycle to the typical use-case, but that's surely
pretty cheap relative to the I/O this code has to do.
Also, add TAP test cases to exercise this code, because there was no
test coverage before.
This reverts most of commit 2eb3bc588, as there's no longer a need for
a warning message about overlength .pgpass lines. (I kept the explicit
check for comment lines, though.)
In HEAD and v13, this also fixes an oversight in 74a308cf5: there's not
much point in explicit_bzero'ing the line buffer if we only do so in two
of the three exit paths.
Back-patch to all supported branches, except that the test case only
goes back to v10 where src/test/authentication/ was added.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4187382.1598909041@sss.pgh.pa.us
Back-patch key parts of 4c5cf5431 and 6ca547cf7 into stable branches.
I didn't touch pg_description entries here, so it's purely a docs
change; and I didn't fool with any examples either. The main point
is so that anyone who's wondering if factorial() exists in the stable
branches will be reassured.
Mark Dilger and John Naylor, with some adjustments by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/BE2DF53D-251A-4E26-972F-930E523580E9@enterprisedb.com
collectMatchBitmap() needs to re-find the index tuple it was previously
looking at, after transiently dropping lock on the index page it's on.
The tuple should still exist and be at its prior position or somewhere
to the right of that, since ginvacuum never removes tuples but
concurrent insertions could add one. However, there was a thinko in
that logic, to the effect of expecting any inserted tuples to have the
same index "attnum" as what we'd been scanning. Since there's no
physical separation of tuples with different attnums, it's not terribly
hard to devise scenarios where this fails, leading to transient "lost
saved point in index" errors. (While I've duplicated this with manual
testing, it seems impossible to make a reproducible test case with our
available testing technology.)
Fix by just continuing the scan when the attnum doesn't match.
While here, improve the error message used if we do fail, so that it
matches the wording used in btree for a similar case.
collectMatchBitmap()'s posting-tree code path was previously not
exercised at all by our regression tests. While I can't make
a regression test that exhibits the bug, I can at least improve
the code coverage here, so do that. The test case I made for this
is an extension of one added by 4b754d6c1, so it only works in
HEAD and v13; didn't seem worth trying hard to back-patch it.
Per bug #16595 from Jesse Kinkead. This has been broken since
multicolumn capability was added to GIN (commit 27cb66fdf),
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16595-633118be8eef9ce2@postgresql.org
The trouble with doing this is that an apparently-constant subquery
output column isn't really constant if it is a grouping column that
appears in only some of the grouping sets. A qual using such a
column would be subject to incorrect const-folding after push-down,
as seen in bug #16585 from Paul Sivash.
To fix, just disable qual pushdown altogether if the sub-query has
nonempty groupingSets. While we could imagine far less restrictive
solutions, there is not much point in working harder right now,
because subquery_planner() won't move HAVING clauses to WHERE within
such a subquery. If the qual stays in HAVING it's not going to be
a lot more useful than if we'd kept it at the outer level.
Having said that, this restriction could be removed if we used a
parsetree representation that distinguished such outputs from actual
constants, which is something I hope to do in future. Hence, make
the patch a minimal addition rather than integrating it more tightly
(e.g. by renumbering the existing items in subquery_is_pushdown_safe's
comment).
Back-patch to 9.5 where grouping sets were introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16585-9d8c340d23ade8c1@postgresql.org
If a CREATE TABLE command uses both LIKE and traditional inheritance,
Vars in CHECK constraints and expression indexes that are absorbed
from a LIKE parent table tended to get mis-numbered, resulting in
wrong answers and/or bizarre error messages (though probably not any
actual crashes, thanks to validation occurring in the executor).
In v12 and up, the same could happen to Vars in GENERATED expressions,
even in cases with no LIKE clause but multiple traditional-inheritance
parents.
The cause of the problem for LIKE is that parse_utilcmd.c supposed
it could renumber such Vars correctly during transformCreateStmt(),
which it cannot since we have not yet accounted for columns added via
inheritance. Fix that by postponing processing of LIKE INCLUDING
CONSTRAINTS, DEFAULTS, GENERATED, INDEXES till after we've performed
DefineRelation().
The error with GENERATED and multiple inheritance is a simple oversight
in MergeAttributes(); it knows it has to renumber Vars in inherited
CHECK constraints, but forgot to apply the same processing to inherited
GENERATED expressions (a/k/a defaults).
Per bug #16272 from Tom Gottfried. The non-GENERATED variants of the
issue are ancient, presumably dating right back to the addition of
CREATE TABLE LIKE; hence back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16272-6e32da020e9a9381@postgresql.org
Several PGXN modules reference LockTagType values; renumbering would
force a recompile of those modules. Oversight in back-patch of today's
commit 566372b3d6435639e4cc4476d79b8505a0297c87. Back-patch to released
branches, v12 through 9.5.
Reported by Tom Lane.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/921383.1597523945@sss.pgh.pa.us
The SimpleLruTruncate() header comment states the new coding rule. To
achieve this, add locktype "frozenid" and two LWLocks. This closes a
rare opportunity for data loss, which manifested as "apparent
wraparound" or "could not access status of transaction" errors. Data
loss is more likely in pg_multixact, due to released branches' thin
margin between multiStopLimit and multiWrapLimit. If a user's physical
replication primary logged ": apparent wraparound" messages, the user
should rebuild standbys of that primary regardless of symptoms. At less
risk is a cluster having emitted "not accepting commands" errors or
"must be vacuumed" warnings at some point. One can test a cluster for
this data loss by running VACUUM FREEZE in every database. Back-patch
to 9.5 (all supported versions).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190218073103.GA1434723@rfd.leadboat.com
nodeSubplan.c expects that the testexpr for a hashable ANY SubPlan
has the form of one or more OpExprs whose LHS is an expression of the
outer query's, while the RHS is an expression over Params representing
output columns of the subquery. However, the planner only went as far
as verifying that the clauses were all binary OpExprs. This works
99.99% of the time, because the clauses have the right shape when
emitted by the parser --- but it's possible for function inlining to
break that, as reported by PegoraroF10. To fix, teach the planner
to check that the LHS and RHS contain the right things, or more
accurately don't contain the wrong things. Given that this has been
broken for years without anyone noticing, it seems sufficient to just
give up hashing when it happens, rather than go to the trouble of
commuting the clauses back again (which wouldn't necessarily work
anyway).
While poking at that, I also noticed that nodeSubplan.c had a baked-in
assumption that the number of hash clauses is identical to the number
of subquery output columns. Again, that's fine as far as parser output
goes, but it's not hard to break it via function inlining. There seems
little reason for that assumption though --- AFAICS, the only thing
it's buying us is not having to store the number of hash clauses
explicitly. Adding code to the planner to reject such cases would take
more code than getting nodeSubplan.c to cope, so I fixed it that way.
This has been broken for as long as we've had hashable SubPlans,
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1549209182255-0.post@n3.nabble.com
Up to now, upon receipt of a SIGTERM ("smart shutdown" command), the
postmaster has immediately killed all "optional" background processes,
and subsequently refused to launch new ones while it's waiting for
foreground client processes to exit. No doubt this seemed like an OK
policy at some point; but it's a pretty bad one now, because it makes
for a seriously degraded environment for the remaining clients:
* Parallel queries are killed, and new ones fail to launch. (And our
parallel-query infrastructure utterly fails to deal with the case
in a reasonable way --- it just hangs waiting for workers that are
not going to arrive. There is more work needed in that area IMO.)
* Autovacuum ceases to function. We can tolerate that for awhile,
but if bulk-update queries continue to run in the surviving client
sessions, there's eventually going to be a mess. In the worst case
the system could reach a forced shutdown to prevent XID wraparound.
* The bgwriter and walwriter are also stopped immediately, likely
resulting in performance degradation.
Hence, let's rearrange things so that the only immediate change in
behavior is refusing to let in new normal connections. Once the last
normal connection is gone, shut everything down as though we'd received
a "fast" shutdown. To implement this, remove the PM_WAIT_BACKUP and
PM_WAIT_READONLY states, instead staying in PM_RUN or PM_HOT_STANDBY
while normal connections remain. A subsidiary state variable tracks
whether or not we're letting in new connections in those states.
This also allows having just one copy of the logic for killing child
processes in smart and fast shutdown modes. I moved that logic into
PostmasterStateMachine() by inventing a new state PM_STOP_BACKENDS.
Back-patch to 9.6 where parallel query was added. In principle
this'd be a good idea in 9.5 as well, but the risk/reward ratio
is not as good there, since lack of autovacuum is not a problem
during typical uses of smart shutdown.
Per report from Bharath Rupireddy.
Patch by me, reviewed by Thomas Munro
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALj2ACXAZ5vKxT9P7P89D87i3MDO9bfS+_bjMHgnWJs8uwUOOw@mail.gmail.com
When a table is scanned by heapam_index_build_range_scan (née
IndexBuildHeapScan) and the table lock being held allows concurrent data
changes, it is possible for new HOT chains to sprout in a page that were
unknown when the scan of a page happened. This leads to an error such
as
ERROR: failed to find parent tuple for heap-only tuple at (X,Y) in table "tbl"
because the root tuple was not present when we first obtained the list
of the page's root tuples. This can be fixed by re-obtaining the list
of root tuples, if we see that a heap-only tuple appears to point to a
non-existing root.
This was reported by Anastasia as occurring for BRIN summarization
(which exists since 9.5), but I think it could theoretically also happen
with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (much older) or REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
(very recent). It seems a happy coincidence that BRIN forces us to
backpatch this all the way to 9.5.
Reported-by: Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>
Diagnosed-by: Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>
Co-authored-by: Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>
Co-authored-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/602d8487-f0b2-5486-0088-0f372b2549fa@postgrespro.ru
Backpatch: 9.5 - master
If a page range is desummarized at just the right time concurrently with
an index walk, BRIN would raise an error indicating index corruption.
This is scary and unhelpful; silently returning that the page range is
not summarized is sufficient reaction.
This bug was introduced by commit 975ad4e602ff as additional protection
against a bug whose actual fix was elsewhere. Backpatch equally.
Reported-By: Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>
Diagnosed-By: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2588667e-d07d-7e10-74e2-7e1e46194491@postgrespro.ru
Backpatch: 9.5 - master
