If a view has some updatable and some non-updatable columns, we failed
to verify updatability of any columns for which an INSERT or UPDATE
on the view explicitly specifies a DEFAULT item (unless the view has
a declared default for that column, which is rare anyway, and one
would almost certainly not write one for a non-updatable column).
This would lead to an unexpected "attribute number N not found in
view targetlist" error rather than the intended error.
Per bug #18546 from Alexander Lakhin. This bug is old, so back-patch
to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18546-84a292e759a9361d@postgresql.org
Commit a3c7a993d fixed some cases involving target columns that are
arrays or composites by applying transformAssignedExpr to the VALUES
entries, and then stripping off any assignment ArrayRefs or
FieldStores that the transformation added. But I forgot about domains
over arrays or composites :-(. Such cases would either fail with
surprising complaints about mismatched datatypes, or insert unexpected
coercions that could lead to odd results. To fix, extend the
stripping logic to get rid of CoerceToDomain if it's atop an ArrayRef
or FieldStore.
While poking at this, I realized that there's a poorly documented and
not-at-all-tested behavior nearby: we coerce each VALUES column to
the domain type separately, and rely on the rewriter to merge those
operations so that the domain constraints are checked only once.
If that merging did not happen, it's entirely possible that we'd get
unexpected domain constraint failures due to checking a
partially-updated container value. There's no bug there, but while
we're here let's improve the commentary about it and add some test
cases that explicitly exercise that behavior.
Per bug #18393 from Pablo Kharo. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18393-65fedb1a0de9260d@postgresql.org
rewriteRuleAction neglected to check for SubLink nodes in the
securityQuals of range table entries. This could lead to failing
to convert such a SubLink to a SubPlan, resulting in assertion
crashes or weird errors later in planning.
In passing, fix some poor coding in rewriteTargetView:
we should not pass the source parsetree's hasSubLinks
field to ReplaceVarsFromTargetList's outer_hasSubLinks.
ReplaceVarsFromTargetList knows enough to ignore that
when a Query node is passed, but it's still confusing
and bad precedent: if we did try to update that flag
we'd be updating a stale copy of the parsetree.
Per bug #17972 from Alexander Lakhin. This has been broken since
we added RangeTblEntry.securityQuals (although the presented test
case only fails back to 215b43cdc), so back-patch all the way.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17972-f422c094237847d0@postgresql.org
If a view is defined atop another view, and then CREATE OR REPLACE
VIEW is used to add columns to the lower view, then when the upper
view's referencing RTE is expanded by ApplyRetrieveRule we will have
a subquery RTE with fewer eref->colnames than output columns. This
confuses various code that assumes those lists are always in sync,
as they are in plain parser output.
We have seen such problems before (cf commit d5b760ecb), and now
I think the time has come to do what was speculated about in that
commit: let's make ApplyRetrieveRule synthesize some column names to
preserve the invariant that holds in parser output. Otherwise we'll
be chasing this class of bugs indefinitely. Moreover, it appears from
testing that this actually gives us better results in the test case
d5b760ecb added, and likely in other corner cases that we lack
coverage for.
In HEAD, I replaced d5b760ecb's hack to make expandRTE exit early with
an elog(ERROR) call, since the case is now presumably unreachable.
But it seems like changing that in back branches would bring more risk
than benefit, so there I just updated the comment.
Per bug #17811 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17811-d31686b78f0dffc9@postgresql.org
If a rule action contains a subquery that refers to columns from OLD
or NEW, then those are really lateral references, and the planner will
complain if it sees such things in a subquery that isn't marked as
lateral. However, at rule-definition time, the user isn't required to
mark the subquery with LATERAL, and so it can fail when the rule is
used.
Fix this by marking such subqueries as lateral in the rewriter, at the
point where they're used.
Dean Rasheed and Tom Lane, per report from Alexander Lakhin.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5e09da43-aaba-7ea7-0a51-a2eb981b058b%40gmail.com
Given an updatable view with a DO ALSO INSERT ... SELECT rule, a
multi-row INSERT ... VALUES query on the view fails if the VALUES list
contains any DEFAULTs that are not replaced by view defaults. This
manifests as an "unrecognized node type" error, or an Assert failure,
in an assert-enabled build.
The reason is that when RewriteQuery() attempts to replace the
remaining DEFAULT items with NULLs in any product queries, using
rewriteValuesRTEToNulls(), it assumes that the VALUES RTE is located
at the same rangetable index in each product query. However, if the
product query is an INSERT ... SELECT, then the VALUES RTE is actually
in the SELECT part of that query (at the same index), rather than the
top-level product query itself.
Fix, by descending to the SELECT in such cases. Note that we can't
simply use getInsertSelectQuery() for this, since that expects to be
given a raw rule action with OLD and NEW placeholder entries, so we
duplicate its logic instead.
While at it, beef up the checks in getInsertSelectQuery() by checking
that the jointree->fromlist node is indeed a RangeTblRef, and that the
RTE it points to has rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY.
Per bug #17803, from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Tom Lane.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17803-53c63ed4ecb4eac6%40postgresql.org
When updating a relation with a rule whose action performed an INSERT
from a multi-row VALUES list, the rewriter might skip processing the
VALUES list, and therefore fail to replace any DEFAULTs in it. This
would lead to an "unrecognized node type" error.
The reason was that RewriteQuery() assumed that a query doing an
INSERT from a multi-row VALUES list would necessarily only have one
item in its fromlist, pointing to the VALUES RTE to read from. That
assumption is correct for the original query, but not for product
queries produced for rule actions. In such cases, there may be
multiple items in the fromlist, possibly including multiple VALUES
RTEs.
What is required instead is for RewriteQuery() to skip any RTEs from
the product query's originating query, which might include one or more
already-processed VALUES RTEs. What's left should then include at most
one VALUES RTE (from the rule action) to be processed.
Patch by me. Thanks to Tom Lane for reviewing.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCV39OOW7LAR_Xq4i%2BLc1Byux%3DeK3Q%3DHD_pF1o9LBt%3DphA%40mail.gmail.com
DEFAULT markers appearing in an INSERT on an updatable view
could be mis-processed if they were in a multi-row VALUES clause.
This would lead to strange errors such as "cache lookup failed
for type NNNN", or in older branches even to crashes.
The cause is that commit 41531e42d tried to re-use rewriteValuesRTE()
to remove any SetToDefault nodes (that hadn't previously been replaced
by the view's own default values) appearing in "product" queries,
that is DO ALSO queries. That's fundamentally wrong because the
DO ALSO queries might not even be INSERTs; and even if they are,
their targetlists don't necessarily match the view's column list,
so that almost all the logic in rewriteValuesRTE() is inapplicable.
What we want is a narrow focus on replacing any such nodes with NULL
constants. (That is, in this context we are interpreting the defaults
as being strictly those of the view itself; and we already replaced
any that aren't NULL.) We could add still more !force_nulls tests
to further lobotomize rewriteValuesRTE(); but it seems cleaner to
split out this case to a new function, restoring rewriteValuesRTE()
to the charter it had before.
Per bug #17633 from jiye_sw. Patch by me, but thanks to
Richard Guo and Japin Li for initial investigation.
Back-patch to all supported branches, as the previous fix was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17633-98cc85e1fa91e905@postgresql.org
If we copy data-modifying CTEs from the original query to a replacement
query (from a DO INSTEAD rule), we must set hasModifyingCTE properly
in the replacement query. Failure to do this can cause various
unpleasantness, such as unsafe usage of parallel plans. The code also
neglected to propagate hasRecursive, though that's only cosmetic at
the moment.
A difficulty arises if the rule action is an INSERT...SELECT. We
attach the original query's RTEs and CTEs to the sub-SELECT Query, but
data-modifying CTEs are only allowed to appear in the topmost Query.
For the moment, throw an error in such cases. It would probably be
possible to avoid this error by attaching the CTEs to the top INSERT
Query instead; but that would require a bunch of new code to adjust
ctelevelsup references. Given the narrowness of the use-case, and
the need to back-patch this fix, it does not seem worth the trouble
for now. We can revisit this if we get field complaints.
Per report from Greg Nancarrow. Back-patch to all supported branches.
(The test case added here does not fail before v10, but there are
plenty of places checking top-level hasModifyingCTE in 9.6, so I have
no doubt that this code change is necessary there too.)
Greg Nancarrow and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJcOf-f68DT=26YAMz_i0+Au3TcLO5oiHY5=fL6Sfuits6r+_w@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJcOf-fAdj=nDKMsRhQzndm-O13NY4dL6xGcEvdX5Xvbbi0V7g@mail.gmail.com
Since the executor can't cope with a utility statement appearing
as a node of a plan tree, we can't support cases where a rewrite
rule inserts a NOTIFY into an INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE command appearing
in a WITH clause of a larger query. (One can imagine ways around
that, but it'd be a new feature not a bug fix, and so far there's
been no demand for it.) RewriteQuery checked for this, but it
missed the case where the DML command rewrites to *only* a NOTIFY.
That'd lead to crashes later on in planning. Add the missed check,
and improve the level of testing of this area.
Per bug #17094 from Yaoguang Chen. It's been busted since WITH
was introduced, so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17094-bf15dff55eaf2e28@postgresql.org
rewriteRuleAction() neglected this step, although it was careful to
propagate other similar flags such as hasSubLinks or hasRowSecurity.
Omitting to transfer hasRecursive is just cosmetic at the moment,
but omitting hasModifyingCTE is a live bug, since the executor
certainly looks at that.
The proposed test case only fails back to v10, but since the executor
examines hasModifyingCTE in 9.x as well, I suspect that a test case
could be devised that fails in older branches. Given the nearness
of the release deadline, though, I'm not going to spend time looking
for a better test.
Report and patch by Greg Nancarrow, cosmetic changes by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJcOf-fAdj=nDKMsRhQzndm-O13NY4dL6xGcEvdX5Xvbbi0V7g@mail.gmail.com
It's unsafe to do this at parse time because addition of generated
columns to a table would not invalidate stored rules containing
UPDATEs on the table ... but there might now be dependent generated
columns that were not there when the rule was made. This also fixes
an oversight that rewriteTargetView failed to update extraUpdatedCols
when transforming an UPDATE on an updatable view. (Since the new
calculation is downstream of that, rewriteTargetView doesn't actually
need to do anything; but before, there was a demonstrable bug there.)
In v13 and HEAD, this leads to easily-visible bugs because (since
commit c6679e4fc) we won't recalculate generated columns that aren't
listed in extraUpdatedCols. In v12 this bitmap is mostly just used
for trigger-firing decisions, so you'd only notice a problem if a
trigger cared whether a generated column had been updated.
I'd complained about this back in May, but then forgot about it
until bug #16671 from Michael Paul Killian revived the issue.
Back-patch to v12 where this field was introduced. If existing
stored rules contain any extraUpdatedCols values, they'll be
ignored because the rewriter will overwrite them, so the bug will
be fixed even for existing rules. (But note that if someone were
to update to 13.1 or 12.5, store some rules with UPDATEs on tables
having generated columns, and then downgrade to a prior minor version,
they might observe issues similar to what this patch fixes. That
seems unlikely enough to not be worth going to a lot of effort to fix.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/10206.1588964727@sss.pgh.pa.us
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16671-2fa55851859fb166@postgresql.org
A view with conditional INSTEAD rules and no unconditional INSTEAD
rules or INSTEAD OF triggers is not auto-updatable. Previously we
relied on a check in the executor to catch this, but that's
problematic since the planner may fail to properly handle such a query
and thus return a particularly unhelpful error to the user, before
reaching the executor check.
Instead, trap this in the rewriter and report the correct error there.
Doing so also allows us to include more useful error detail than the
executor check can provide. This doesn't change the existing behaviour
of updatable views; it merely ensures that useful error messages are
reported when a view isn't updatable.
Per report from Pengzhou Tang, though not adopting that suggested fix.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAG4reAQn+4xB6xHJqWdtE0ve_WqJkdyCV4P=trYr4Kn8_3_PEA@mail.gmail.com
While a self-referential view doesn't actually work, it's possible
to create one, and it turns out that this breaks some of the
information_schema views. Those views call relation_is_updatable(),
which neglected to consider the hazards of being recursive. In
older PG versions you get a "stack depth limit exceeded" error,
but since v10 it'd recurse to the point of stack overrun and crash,
because commit a4c35ea1c took out the expression_returns_set() call
that was incidentally checking the stack depth.
Since this function is only used by information_schema views, it
seems like it'd be better to return "not updatable" than suffer
an error. Hence, add tracking of what views we're examining,
in just the same way that the nearby fireRIRrules() code detects
self-referential views. I added a check_stack_depth() call too,
just to be defensive.
Per private report from Manuel Rigger. Back-patch to all
supported versions.
This is an SQL-standard feature that allows creating columns that are
computed from expressions rather than assigned, similar to a view or
materialized view but on a column basis.
This implements one kind of generated column: stored (computed on
write). Another kind, virtual (computed on read), is planned for the
future, and some room is left for it.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Reviewed-by: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/b151f851-4019-bdb1-699e-ebab07d2f40a@2ndquadrant.com
Previously, rewriteTargetListIU() generated a list of attribute
numbers from the targetlist, which were passed to rewriteValuesRTE(),
which expected them to contain the same number of entries as there are
columns in the VALUES RTE, and to be in the same order. That was fine
when the target relation was a table, but for an updatable view it
could be broken in at least three different ways ---
rewriteTargetListIU() could insert additional targetlist entries for
view columns with defaults, the view columns could be in a different
order from the columns of the underlying base relation, and targetlist
entries could be merged together when assigning to elements of an
array or composite type. As a result, when recursing to the base
relation, the list of attribute numbers generated from the rewritten
targetlist could no longer be relied upon to match the columns of the
VALUES RTE. We got away with that prior to 41531e42d3 because it used
to always be the case that rewriteValuesRTE() did nothing for the
underlying base relation, since all DEFAULTS had already been replaced
when it was initially invoked for the view, but that was incorrect
because it failed to apply defaults from the base relation.
Fix this by examining the targetlist entries more carefully and
picking out just those that are simple Vars referencing the VALUES
RTE. That's sufficient for the purposes of rewriteValuesRTE(), which
is only responsible for dealing with DEFAULT items in the VALUES
RTE. Any DEFAULT item in the VALUES RTE that doesn't have a matching
simple-Var-assignment in the targetlist is an error which we complain
about, but in theory that ought to be impossible.
Additionally, move this code into rewriteValuesRTE() to give a clearer
separation of concerns between the 2 functions. There is no need for
rewriteTargetListIU() to know about the details of the VALUES RTE.
While at it, fix the comment for rewriteValuesRTE() which claimed that
it doesn't support array element and field assignments --- that hasn't
been true since a3c7a993d5 (9.6 and later).
Back-patch to all supported versions, with minor differences for the
pre-9.6 branches, which don't support array element and field
assignments to the same column in multi-row VALUES lists.
Reviewed by Amit Langote.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15623-5d67a46788ec8b7f@postgresql.org
INSERT ... VALUES for a single VALUES row is implemented differently
from a multi-row VALUES list, which causes inconsistent behaviour in
the way that DEFAULT items are handled. In particular, when inserting
into an auto-updatable view on top of a table with a column default, a
DEFAULT item in a single VALUES row gets correctly replaced with the
table column's default, but for a multi-row VALUES list it is replaced
with NULL.
Fix this by allowing rewriteValuesRTE() to leave DEFAULT items in the
VALUES list untouched if the target relation is an auto-updatable view
and has no column default, deferring DEFAULT-expansion until the query
against the base relation is rewritten. For all other types of target
relation, including tables and trigger- and rule-updatable views, we
must continue to replace DEFAULT items with NULL in the absence of a
column default.
This is somewhat complicated by the fact that if an auto-updatable
view has DO ALSO rules attached, the VALUES lists for the product
queries need to be handled differently from the original query, since
the product queries need to act like rule-updatable views whereas the
original query has auto-updatable view semantics.
Back-patch to all supported versions.
Reported by Roger Curley (bug #15623). Patch by Amit Langote and me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15623-5d67a46788ec8b7f@postgresql.org
heapam.h previously was included in a number of widely used
headers (e.g. execnodes.h, indirectly in executor.h, ...). That's
problematic on its own, as heapam.h contains a lot of low-level
details that don't need to be exposed that widely, but becomes more
problematic with the upcoming introduction of pluggable table storage
- it seems inappropriate for heapam.h to be included that widely
afterwards.
heapam.h was largely only included in other headers to get the
HeapScanDesc typedef (which was defined in heapam.h, even though
HeapScanDescData is defined in relscan.h). The better solution here
seems to be to just use the underlying struct (forward declared where
necessary). Similar for BulkInsertState.
Another problem was that LockTupleMode was used in executor.h - parts
of the file tried to cope without heapam.h, but due to the fact that
it indirectly included it, several subsequent violations of that goal
were not not noticed. We could just reuse the approach of declaring
parameters as int, but it seems nicer to move LockTupleMode to
lockoptions.h - that's not a perfect location, but also doesn't seem
bad.
As a number of files relied on implicitly included heapam.h, a
significant number of files grew an explicit include. It's quite
probably that a few external projects will need to do the same.
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Alvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190114000701.y4ttcb74jpskkcfb@alap3.anarazel.de
Instead of recomputing the required lock levels in all these places,
just use what commit fdba460a2 made the parser store in the RTE fields.
This already simplifies the code measurably in these places, and
follow-on changes will remove a bunch of no-longer-needed infrastructure.
In a few cases, this change causes us to acquire a higher lock level
than we did before. This is OK primarily because said higher lock level
should've been acquired already at query parse time; thus, we're saving
a useless extra trip through the shared lock manager to acquire a lesser
lock alongside the original lock. The only known exception to this is
that re-execution of a previously planned SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE query,
for a table that uses ROW_MARK_REFERENCE or ROW_MARK_COPY methods, might
have gotten only AccessShareLock before. Now it will get RowShareLock
like the first execution did, which seems fine.
While there's more to do, push it in this state anyway, to let the
buildfarm help verify that nothing bad happened.
Amit Langote, reviewed by David Rowley and Jesper Pedersen,
and whacked around a bit more by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
Add RangeTblEntry.rellockmode, which records the appropriate lock mode for
each RTE_RELATION rangetable entry (either AccessShareLock, RowShareLock,
or RowExclusiveLock depending on the RTE's role in the query).
This patch creates the field and makes all creators of RTE nodes fill it
in reasonably, but for the moment nothing much is done with it. The plan
is to replace assorted post-parser logic that re-determines the right
lockmode to use with simple uses of rte->rellockmode. For now, just add
Asserts in each of those places that the rellockmode matches what they are
computing today. (In some cases the match isn't perfect, so the Asserts
are weaker than you might expect; but this seems OK, as per discussion.)
This passes check-world for me, but it seems worth pushing in this state
to see if the buildfarm finds any problems in cases I failed to test.
catversion bump due to change of stored rules.
Amit Langote, reviewed by David Rowley and Jesper Pedersen,
and whacked around a bit more by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
A test patch to pass parse and plan trees through outfuncs + readfuncs
exposed several issues that need to be fixed to get clean matches:
Query.withCheckOptions failed to get copied; it's intentionally ignored
by outfuncs/readfuncs on the grounds that it'd always be NIL anyway in
stored rules. This seems less than future-proof, and it's not even
saving very much, so just undo the decision and treat the field like
all others.
Several places that convert a view RTE into a subquery RTE, or similar
manipulations, failed to clear out fields that were specific to the
original RTE type and should be zero in a subquery RTE. Since readfuncs.c
will leave such fields as zero, equalfuncs.c thinks the nodes are different
leading to a reported mismatch. It seems like a good idea to clear out the
no-longer-needed fields, even though in principle nothing should look at
them; the node ought to be indistinguishable from how it would look if
we'd built a new node instead of scribbling on the old one.
BuildOnConflictExcludedTargetlist randomly set the resname of some
TargetEntries to "" not NULL. outfuncs/readfuncs don't distinguish those
cases, and so the string will read back in as NULL ... but equalfuncs.c
does distinguish. Perhaps we ought to try to make things more consistent
in this area --- but it's just useless extra code space for
BuildOnConflictExcludedTargetlist to not use NULL here, so I fixed it for
now by making it do that.
catversion bumped because the change in handling of Query.withCheckOptions
affects stored rules.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17114.1537138992@sss.pgh.pa.us
While monitoring the code, a couple of issues related to string
translation has showed up:
- Some routines for auto-updatable views return an error string, which
sometimes missed the shot. A comment regarding string translation is
added for each routine to help with future features.
- GSSAPI authentication missed two translations.
- vacuumdb handles non-translated strings.
- GetConfigOptionByNum should translate strings. This part is not
back-patched as after a minor upgrade this could be surprising for
users.
Reported-by: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Author: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180810.152131.31921918.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Backpatch-through: 9.3
When expanding an updatable view that is an INSERT's target, the rewriter
failed to rewrite Vars in the ON CONFLICT UPDATE clause. This accidentally
worked if the view was just "SELECT * FROM ...", as the transformation
would be a no-op in that case. With more complicated view targetlists,
this omission would often lead to "attribute ... has the wrong type" errors
or even crashes, as reported by Mario De Frutos Dieguez.
Fix by adding code to rewriteTargetView to fix up the data structure
correctly. The easiest way to update the exclRelTlist list is to rebuild
it from scratch looking at the new target relation, so factor the code
for that out of transformOnConflictClause to make it sharable.
In passing, avoid duplicate permissions checks against the EXCLUDED
pseudo-relation, and prevent useless view expansion of that relation's
dummy RTE. The latter is only known to happen (after this patch) in cases
where the query would fail later due to not having any INSTEAD OF triggers
for the view. But by exactly that token, it would create an unintended
and very poorly tested state of the query data structure, so it seems like
a good idea to prevent it from happening at all.
This has been broken since ON CONFLICT was introduced, so back-patch
to 9.5.
Dean Rasheed, based on an earlier patch by Amit Langote;
comment-kibitzing and back-patching by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFYwGJ0xfzy8jaK80hVN2eUWr6huce0RU8AgU04MGD00igqkTg@mail.gmail.com
In the wake of commit 50c6bb022, it's not necessary for ApplyRetrieveRule
to have a forUpdatePushedDown parameter. By the time control gets here for
any given view-referencing RTE, we should already have pushed down the
effects of any FOR UPDATE/SHARE clauses affecting the view from outer query
levels. Hence if we don't find a RowMarkClause at the current query level,
that's sufficient proof that there is no outer one either. This in turn
means we need no forUpdatePushedDown parameter for fireRIRrules.
I wonder whether we oughtn't also revert commit cba2d2717, since it now
seems likely that that was band-aiding around the bad effects of doing
FOR UPDATE pushdown and view expansion in the wrong order. However,
in the absence of evidence that the current coding of markQueryForLocking
is actually buggy (i.e. missing RTEs it ought to mark), it seems best to
leave it alone.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/24db7b8f-3de5-e25f-7ab9-d8848351d42c@gmail.com
SELECT FOR UPDATE on a view should require UPDATE (as well as SELECT)
permissions on the view, and then the view's owner needs those same
permissions against the relations it references, and so on all the way
down to base tables. But ApplyRetrieveRule did things in the wrong order,
resulting in failure to mark intermediate view levels as needing UPDATE
permission. Thus for example, if user A creates a table T and an updatable
view V1 on T, then grants only SELECT permissions on V1 to user B, B could
create a second view V2 on V1 and then would be allowed to perform SELECT
FOR UPDATE via V2 (since V1 wouldn't be checked for UPDATE permissions).
To fix, just switch the order of expanding sub-views and marking referenced
objects as needing UPDATE permission. I think additional simplifications
are now possible, but that's distinct from the bug fix proper.
This is certainly a security issue, but the consequences are pretty minor
(just the ability to lock rows that shouldn't be lockable). Against that
we have a small risk of breaking applications that are working as-desired,
since nested views have behaved this way since such cases worked at all.
On balance I'm inclined not to back-patch.
Per report from Alexander Lakhin.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/24db7b8f-3de5-e25f-7ab9-d8848351d42c@gmail.com
This reverts commits d204ef6377,
83454e3c2b and a few more commits thereafter
(complete list at the end) related to MERGE feature.
While the feature was fully functional, with sufficient test coverage and
necessary documentation, it was felt that some parts of the executor and
parse-analyzer can use a different design and it wasn't possible to do that in
the available time. So it was decided to revert the patch for PG11 and retry
again in the future.
Thanks again to all reviewers and bug reporters.
List of commits reverted, in reverse chronological order:
f1464c5380 Improve parse representation for MERGE
ddb4158579 MERGE syntax diagram correction
530e69e59b Allow cpluspluscheck to pass by renaming variable
01b88b4df5 MERGE minor errata
3af7b2b0d4 MERGE fix variable warning in non-assert builds
a5d86181ec MERGE INSERT allows only one VALUES clause
4b2d44031f MERGE post-commit review
4923550c20 Tab completion for MERGE
aa3faa3c7a WITH support in MERGE
83454e3c2b New files for MERGE
d204ef6377 MERGE SQL Command following SQL:2016
Author: Pavan Deolasee
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
MERGE performs actions that modify rows in the target table
using a source table or query. MERGE provides a single SQL
statement that can conditionally INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE rows
a task that would other require multiple PL statements.
e.g.
MERGE INTO target AS t
USING source AS s
ON t.tid = s.sid
WHEN MATCHED AND t.balance > s.delta THEN
UPDATE SET balance = t.balance - s.delta
WHEN MATCHED THEN
DELETE
WHEN NOT MATCHED AND s.delta > 0 THEN
INSERT VALUES (s.sid, s.delta)
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
DO NOTHING;
MERGE works with regular and partitioned tables, including
column and row security enforcement, as well as support for
row, statement and transition triggers.
MERGE is optimized for OLTP and is parameterizable, though
also useful for large scale ETL/ELT. MERGE is not intended
to be used in preference to existing single SQL commands
for INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE since there is some overhead.
MERGE can be used statically from PL/pgSQL.
MERGE does not yet support inheritance, write rules,
RETURNING clauses, updatable views or foreign tables.
MERGE follows SQL Standard per the most recent SQL:2016.
Includes full tests and documentation, including full
isolation tests to demonstrate the concurrent behavior.
This version written from scratch in 2017 by Simon Riggs,
using docs and tests originally written in 2009. Later work
from Pavan Deolasee has been both complex and deep, leaving
the lead author credit now in his hands.
Extensive discussion of concurrency from Peter Geoghegan,
with thanks for the time and effort contributed.
Various issues reported via sqlsmith by Andreas Seltenreich
Authors: Pavan Deolasee, Simon Riggs
Reviewer: Peter Geoghegan, Amit Langote, Tomas Vondra, Simon Riggs
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CANP8+jKitBSrB7oTgT9CY2i1ObfOt36z0XMraQc+Xrz8QB0nXA@mail.gmail.comhttps://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkJdBuxj9PO=2QaO9-3h3xGbQPZ34kJH=HukRekwM-GZg@mail.gmail.com
Currently adding a column to a table with a non-NULL default results in
a rewrite of the table. For large tables this can be both expensive and
disruptive. This patch removes the need for the rewrite as long as the
default value is not volatile. The default expression is evaluated at
the time of the ALTER TABLE and the result stored in a new column
(attmissingval) in pg_attribute, and a new column (atthasmissing) is set
to true. Any existing row when fetched will be supplied with the
attmissingval. New rows will have the supplied value or the default and
so will never need the attmissingval.
Any time the table is rewritten all the atthasmissing and attmissingval
settings for the attributes are cleared, as they are no longer needed.
The most visible code change from this is in heap_attisnull, which
acquires a third TupleDesc argument, allowing it to detect a missing
value if there is one. In many cases where it is known that there will
not be any (e.g. catalog relations) NULL can be passed for this
argument.
Andrew Dunstan, heavily modified from an original patch from Serge
Rielau.
Reviewed by Tom Lane, Andres Freund, Tomas Vondra and David Rowley.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/31e2e921-7002-4c27-59f5-51f08404c858@2ndQuadrant.com
Investigation of 2d2d06b7e2 revealed that
identity values were not applied in some further cases, including
logical replication subscribers, VALUES RTEs, and ALTER TABLE ... ADD
COLUMN. To fix all that, apply the identity column expression in
build_column_default() instead of repeating the same logic at each call
site.
For ALTER TABLE ... ADD COLUMN ... IDENTITY, the previous coding
completely ignored that existing rows for the new column should have
values filled in from the identity sequence. The coding using
build_column_default() fails for this because the sequence ownership
isn't registered until after ALTER TABLE, and we can't do it before
because we don't have the column in the catalog yet. So we specially
remember in ColumnDef the sequence name that we decided on and build a
custom NextValueExpr using that.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
rewriteTargetListUD's processing is dependent on the relkind of the query's
target table. That was fine at the time it was made to act that way, even
for queries on inheritance trees, because all tables in an inheritance tree
would necessarily be plain tables. However, the 9.5 feature addition
allowing some members of an inheritance tree to be foreign tables broke the
assumption that rewriteTargetListUD's output tlist could be applied to all
child tables with nothing more than column-number mapping. This led to
visible failures if foreign child tables had row-level triggers, and would
also break in cases where child tables belonged to FDWs that used methods
other than CTID for row identification.
To fix, delay running rewriteTargetListUD until after the planner has
expanded inheritance, so that it is applied separately to the (already
mapped) tlist for each child table. We can conveniently call it from
preprocess_targetlist. Refactor associated code slightly to avoid the
need to heap_open the target relation multiple times during
preprocess_targetlist. (The APIs remain a bit ugly, particularly around
the point of which steps scribble on parse->targetList and which don't.
But avoiding such scribbling would require a change in FDW callback APIs,
which is more pain than it's worth.)
Also fix ExecModifyTable to ensure that "tupleid" is reset to NULL when
we transition from rows providing a CTID to rows that don't. (That's
really an independent bug, but it manifests in much the same cases.)
Add a regression test checking one manifestation of this problem, which
was that row-level triggers on a foreign child table did not work right.
Back-patch to 9.5 where the problem was introduced.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Ildus Kurbangaliev and Ashutosh Bapat
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170514150525.0346ba72@postgrespro.ru
The lower case spellings are C and C++ standard and are used in most
parts of the PostgreSQL sources. The upper case spellings are only used
in some files/modules. So standardize on the standard spellings.
The APIs for ICU, Perl, and Windows define their own TRUE and FALSE, so
those are left as is when using those APIs.
In code comments, we use the lower-case spelling for the C concepts and
keep the upper-case spelling for the SQL concepts.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
This takes advantage of the infrastructure introduced by commit
81c5e46c49 to greatly reduce the
likelihood that two different queries will end up with the same query
ID. It's still possible, of course, but whereas before it the chances
of a collision reached 25% around 50,000 queries, it will now take
more than 3 billion queries.
Backward incompatibility: Because the type exposed at the SQL level is
int8, users may now see negative query IDs in the pg_stat_statements
view (and also, query IDs more than 4 billion, which was the old
limit).
Patch by me, reviewed by Michael Paquier and Peter Geoghegan.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobG_Kp4cBKFmsznUAaM1GWW6hhRNiZC0KjRMOOeYnz5Yw@mail.gmail.com
Allowing arrays with a domain type as their element type was left un-done
in the original domain patch, but not for any very good reason. This
omission leads to such surprising results as array_agg() not working on
a domain column, because the parser can't identify a suitable output type
for the polymorphic aggregate.
In order to fix this, first clean up the APIs of coerce_to_domain() and
some internal functions in parse_coerce.c so that we consistently pass
around a CoercionContext along with CoercionForm. Previously, we sometimes
passed an "isExplicit" boolean flag instead, which is strictly less
information; and coerce_to_domain() didn't even get that, but instead had
to reverse-engineer isExplicit from CoercionForm. That's contrary to the
documentation in primnodes.h that says that CoercionForm only affects
display and not semantics. I don't think this change fixes any live bugs,
but it makes things more consistent. The main reason for doing it though
is that now build_coercion_expression() receives ccontext, which it needs
in order to be able to recursively invoke coerce_to_target_type().
Next, reimplement ArrayCoerceExpr so that the node does not directly know
any details of what has to be done to the individual array elements while
performing the array coercion. Instead, the per-element processing is
represented by a sub-expression whose input is a source array element and
whose output is a target array element. This simplifies life in
parse_coerce.c, because it can build that sub-expression by a recursive
invocation of coerce_to_target_type(). The executor now handles the
per-element processing as a compiled expression instead of hard-wired code.
The main advantage of this is that we can use a single ArrayCoerceExpr to
handle as many as three successive steps per element: base type conversion,
typmod coercion, and domain constraint checking. The old code used two
stacked ArrayCoerceExprs to handle type + typmod coercion, which was pretty
inefficient, and adding yet another array deconstruction to do domain
constraint checking seemed very unappetizing.
In the case where we just need a single, very simple coercion function,
doing this straightforwardly leads to a noticeable increase in the
per-array-element runtime cost. Hence, add an additional shortcut evalfunc
in execExprInterp.c that skips unnecessary overhead for that specific form
of expression. The runtime speed of simple cases is within 1% or so of
where it was before, while cases that previously required two levels of
array processing are significantly faster.
Finally, create an implicit array type for every domain type, as we do for
base types, enums, etc. Everything except the array-coercion case seems
to just work without further effort.
Tom Lane, reviewed by Andrew Dunstan
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9852.1499791473@sss.pgh.pa.us
This is a mechanical change in preparation for a later commit that
will change the layout of TupleDesc. Introducing a macro to abstract
the details of where attributes are stored will allow us to change
that in separate step and revise it in future.
Author: Thomas Munro, editorialized by Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com
We allow INSERT and UPDATE commands to assign to the same column more than
once, as long as the assignments are to subfields or elements rather than
the whole column. However, this failed when the target column was a domain
over array rather than plain array. Fix by teaching process_matched_tle()
to look through CoerceToDomain nodes, and add relevant test cases.
Also add a group of test cases exercising domains over array of composite.
It's doubtless accidental that CREATE DOMAIN allows this case while not
allowing straight domain over composite; but it does, so we'd better make
sure we don't break it. (I could not find any documentation mentioning
either side of that, so no doc changes.)
It's been like this for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4206.1499798337@sss.pgh.pa.us
The bug would previously prevent the update of any column in a table
with identity columns, rather than just the actual identity column.
Reported-by: zam6ak@gmail.com
Bug: #14718
Don't move parenthesized lines to the left, even if that means they
flow past the right margin.
By default, BSD indent lines up statement continuation lines that are
within parentheses so that they start just to the right of the preceding
left parenthesis. However, traditionally, if that resulted in the
continuation line extending to the right of the desired right margin,
then indent would push it left just far enough to not overrun the margin,
if it could do so without making the continuation line start to the left of
the current statement indent. That makes for a weird mix of indentations
unless one has been completely rigid about never violating the 80-column
limit.
This behavior has been pretty universally panned by Postgres developers.
Hence, disable it with indent's new -lpl switch, so that parenthesized
lines are always lined up with the preceding left paren.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
