Since commit 40dae7ec53, which changed the way b-tree page splitting
works, there has been no difference in the handling of root, and non-root
split WAL records. We don't need to distinguish them anymore
If you're worried about the loss of debugging information, note that
usually a root split record will normally be followed by a WAL record to
create the new root page. The root page will also have the BTP_ROOT flag
set on the page itself, and there is a pointer to it from the metapage.
Author: Aleksander Alekseev
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170406122116.GA11081@e733.localdomain
Change to appendStringInfoChar() or appendStringInfoString() where those
can be used.
Author: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Although not confirmed and probably rare, if the newly allocated memory
is not already zero, this could possibly have caused some problems.
Also reorder the initializations slightly so they match the order of the
struct definition.
Author: Wong, Yi Wen <yiwong@amazon.com>
Reviewed-by: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Some informational messages showed up even if verbose mode was not
used. Move them to verbose mode.
Author: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
This appears to have been an omission in the original commit
0d692a0dc9. All related information_schema views already include
foreign tables.
Reported-by: Nicolas Thauvin <nicolas.thauvin@dalibo.com>
The initial implementation of autovacuum work-items used a dynamic
shared memory area (DSA). However, it's argued that dynamic shared
memory is not portable enough, so we cannot rely on it being supported
everywhere; at the same time, autovacuum work-items are now a critical
part of the server, so it's not acceptable that they don't work in the
cases where dynamic shared memory is disabled. Therefore, let's fall
back to a simpler implementation of work-items that just uses
autovacuum's main shared memory segment for storage.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobQVbz4K_+RSmiM9HeRKpy3vS5xnbkL95gSEnWijzprKQ@mail.gmail.com
Commit 00418c612 expected that the plan generated for a simple-expression
query would always be a plain Result node. However, if force_parallel_mode
is on, the planner might stick a Gather atop that. Cope by looking through
the Gather. For safety, assert that the Gather's tlist is trivial.
Per buildfarm.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/23425.1502822098@sss.pgh.pa.us
Since we currently only have one protocol, this doesn't make much of a
difference other than the error message.
Author: Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
Also create PDF bookmarks/ToC entries for subsections of reference
pages. This was a regression from the previous jadetex-based build.
Reported-by: Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>
The executor is capable of splitting buckets during a hash join if
too much memory is being used by a small number of buckets. However,
this only helps if a bucket's population is actually divisible; if
all the hash keys are alike, the tuples still end up in the same
new bucket. This can result in an OOM failure if there are enough
inner keys with identical hash values. The planner's cost estimates
will bias it against choosing a hash join in such situations, but not
by so much that it will never do so. To mitigate the OOM hazard,
explicitly estimate the hash bucket space needed by just the inner
side's most common value, and if that would exceed work_mem then
add disable_cost to the hash cost estimate.
This approach doesn't account for the possibility that two or more
common values would share the same hash value. On the other hand,
work_mem is normally a fairly conservative bound, so that eating
two or more times that much space is probably not going to kill us.
If we have no stats about the inner side, ignore this consideration.
There was some discussion of making a conservative assumption, but that
would effectively result in disabling hash join whenever we lack stats,
which seems like an overreaction given how seldom the problem manifests
in the field.
Per a complaint from David Hinkle. Although this could be viewed
as a bug fix, the lack of similar complaints weighs against back-
patching; indeed we waited for v11 because it seemed already rather
late in the v10 cycle to be making plan choice changes like this one.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/32013.1487271761@sss.pgh.pa.us
The original code (since 00e6a16d01) was assuming aborting the
transaction in autovacuum launcher was sufficient to release all
resources, but in reality the launcher runs quite a lot of code out of
any transactions. Re-introduce individual cleanup calls to make abort
more robust.
Reported-by: Robert Haas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobQVbz4K_+RSmiM9HeRKpy3vS5xnbkL95gSEnWijzprKQ@mail.gmail.com
Instead of duplicating the logic to search for a matching
ParamPathInfo in multiple places, factor it out into a separate
function.
Pass only the relevant bits of the PartitionKey to
partition_bounds_equal instead of the whole thing, because
partition-wise join will want to call this without having a
PartitionKey available.
Adjust allow_star_schema_join and calc_nestloop_required_outer
to take relevant Relids rather than the entire Path, because
partition-wise join will want to call it with the top-parent
relids to determine whether a child join is allowable.
Ashutosh Bapat. Review and testing of the larger patch set of which
this is a part by Amit Langote, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Rafia Sabih,
Thomas Munro, Dilip Kumar, and me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobQK80vtXjAsPZWWXd7c8u13G86gmuLupN+uUJjA+i4nA@mail.gmail.com
plpgsql wants to recognize expressions that it can execute directly
via ExecEvalExpr() instead of going through the full SPI machinery.
Originally the test for this consisted of recursively groveling through
the post-planning expression tree to see if it contained only nodes that
plpgsql recognized as safe. That was a major maintenance headache, since
it required updating plpgsql every time we added any kind of expression
node. It was also kind of expensive, so over time we added various
pre-planning checks to try to short-circuit having to do that.
Robert Haas pointed out that as of the SRF-processing changes in v10,
particularly the addition of Query.hasTargetSRFs, there really isn't
any reason to make the recursive scan at all: the initial checks cover
everything we really care about. We do have to make sure that those
checks agree with what inline_function() considers, so that inlining
of a function that formerly wasn't inlined can't cause an expression
considered simple to become non-simple.
Hence, delete the recursive function exec_simple_check_node(), and tweak
those other tests to more exactly agree with inline_function(). Adjust
some comments and function naming to match.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZGZpwdEV2FQWaVxA_qZXsQE1DAS5Fu8fwxXDNvfndiUQ@mail.gmail.com
The API for WaitLatch and friends followed the Unix convention in which
waiting for a socket connection to complete is identical to waiting for
the socket to accept a write. While Windows provides a select(2)
emulation that agrees with that, the native WaitForMultipleObjects API
treats them as quite different --- and for some bizarre reason, it will
report a not-yet-connected socket as write-ready. libpq itself has so
far escaped dealing with this because it waits with select(), but in
libpqwalreceiver.c we want to wait using WaitLatchOrSocket. The semantics
mismatch resulted in replication connection failures on Windows, but only
for remote connections (apparently, localhost connections complete
immediately, or at least too fast for anyone to have noticed the problem
in single-machine testing).
To fix, introduce an additional WL_SOCKET_CONNECTED wait flag for
WaitLatchOrSocket, which is identical to WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE on
non-Windows, but results in waiting for FD_CONNECT events on Windows.
Ideally, we would also distinguish the two conditions in the API for
PQconnectPoll(), but changing that API at this point seems infeasible.
Instead, cheat by checking for PQstatus() == CONNECTION_STARTED to
determine that we're still waiting for the connection to complete.
(This is a cheat mainly because CONNECTION_STARTED is documented as an
internal state rather than something callers should rely on. Perhaps
we ought to change the documentation ... but this patch doesn't.)
Per reports from Jobin Augustine and Igor Neyman. Back-patch to v10
where commit 1e8a85009 exposed this longstanding shortcoming.
Andres Freund, minor fix and some code review/beautification by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHBggj8g2T+ZDcACZ2FmzX9CTxkWjKBsHd6NkYB4i9Ojf6K1Fw@mail.gmail.com
Currently, child relations are always base relations, so when we
translate parent relids to child relids, we only need to translate
a singler relid. However, the proposed partition-wise join feature
will create child joins, which will mean we need to translate a set
of parent relids to the corresponding child relids. This is
preliminary refactoring to make that possible.
Ashutosh Bapat. Review and testing of the larger patch set of which
this is a part by Amit Langote, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Rafia Sabih,
Thomas Munro, Dilip Kumar, and me. Some adjustments, mostly
cosmetic, by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobQK80vtXjAsPZWWXd7c8u13G86gmuLupN+uUJjA+i4nA@mail.gmail.com
Before commit d3cc37f1d8, an inheritance parent
whose only children were temp tables of other sessions would end up
as a simple scan of the parent; but with that commit, we end up with
an Append node, per a report from Ashutosh Bapat. Tweak the logic
so that we go back to the old way, and update the function header
comment for partitioning while we're at it.
Ashutosh Bapat, reviewed by Amit Langote and adjusted by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpReWJr1yTkHU=OqiMBmcYCMoSW3VPR39RBuQ_ovwDFBT5Q@mail.gmail.com
Stress testing by Andreas Seltenreich disclosed longstanding problems that
occur if a FATAL exit (e.g. due to receipt of SIGTERM) occurs while we are
trying to execute a ROLLBACK of an already-failed transaction. In such a
case, xact.c is in TBLOCK_ABORT state, so that AbortOutOfAnyTransaction
would skip AbortTransaction and go straight to CleanupTransaction. This
led to an assert failure in an assert-enabled build (due to the ROLLBACK's
portal still having a cleanup hook) or without assertions, to a FATAL exit
complaining about "cannot drop active portal". The latter's not
disastrous, perhaps, but it's messy enough to want to improve it.
We don't really want to run all of AbortTransaction in this code path.
The minimum required to clean up the open portal safely is to do
AtAbort_Memory and AtAbort_Portals. It seems like a good idea to
do AtAbort_Memory unconditionally, to be entirely sure that we are
starting with a safe CurrentMemoryContext. That means that if the
main loop in AbortOutOfAnyTransaction does nothing, we need an extra
step at the bottom to restore CurrentMemoryContext = TopMemoryContext,
which I chose to do by invoking AtCleanup_Memory. This'll result in
calling AtCleanup_Memory twice in many of the paths through this function,
but that seems harmless and reasonably inexpensive.
The original motivation for the assertion in AtCleanup_Portals was that
we wanted to be sure that any user-defined code executed as a consequence
of the cleanup hook runs during AbortTransaction not CleanupTransaction.
That still seems like a valid concern, and now that we've seen one case
of the assertion firing --- which means that exactly that would have
happened in a production build --- let's replace the Assert with a runtime
check. If we see the cleanup hook still set, we'll emit a WARNING and
just drop the hook unexecuted.
This has been like this a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/877ey7bmun.fsf@ansel.ydns.eu
Commit 3c163a7fc's original choice to ignore all #define symbols whose
names begin with underscore turns out to be too simplistic. On Windows,
some Perl installations are built with -D_USE_32BIT_TIME_T, and we must
absorb that or we get the wrong result for sizeof(PerlInterpreter).
This effectively re-reverts commit ef58b87df, which injected that symbol
in a hacky way, making it apply to all of Postgres not just PL/Perl.
More significantly, it did so on *all* 32-bit Windows builds, even when
the Perl build to be used did not select this option; so that it fails
to work properly with some newer Perl builds.
By making this change, we would be introducing an ABI break in 32-bit
Windows builds; but fortunately we have not used type time_t in any
exported Postgres APIs in a long time. So it should be OK, both for
PL/Perl itself and for third-party extensions, if an extension library
is built with a different _USE_32BIT_TIME_T setting than the core code.
Patch by me, based on research by Ashutosh Sharma and Robert Haas.
Back-patch to all supported branches, as commit 3c163a7fc was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANFyU97OVQ3+Mzfmt3MhuUm5NwPU=-FtbNH5Eb7nZL9ua8=rcA@mail.gmail.com
The sole useful effect of this function, to check that no catcache
entries have positive refcounts at transaction end, has really been
obsolete since we introduced ResourceOwners in PG 8.1. We reduced the
checks to assertions years ago, so that the function was a complete
no-op in production builds. There have been previous discussions about
removing it entirely, but consensus up to now was that it had some small
value as a cross-check for bugs in the ResourceOwner logic.
However, it now emerges that it's possible to trigger these assertions
if you hit an assert-enabled backend with SIGTERM during a call to
SearchCatCacheList, because that function temporarily increases the
refcounts of entries it's intending to add to a catcache list construct.
In a normal ERROR scenario, the extra refcounts are cleaned up by
SearchCatCacheList's PG_CATCH block; but in a FATAL exit we do a
transaction abort and exit without ever executing PG_CATCH handlers.
There's a case to be made that this is a generic hazard and we should
consider restructuring elog(FATAL) handling so that pending PG_CATCH
handlers do get run. That's pretty scary though: it could easily create
more problems than it solves. Preliminary stress testing by Andreas
Seltenreich suggests that there are not many live problems of this ilk,
so we rejected that idea.
There are more-localized ways to fix the problem; the most principled
one would be to use PG_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP instead of plain PG_TRY.
But adding cycles to SearchCatCacheList isn't very appealing. We could
also weaken the assertions in AtEOXact_CatCache in some more or less
ad-hoc way, but that just makes its raison d'etre even less compelling.
In the end, the most reasonable solution seems to be to just remove
AtEOXact_CatCache altogether, on the grounds that it's not worth trying
to fix it. It hasn't found any bugs for us in many years.
Per report from Jeevan Chalke. Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAM2+6=VEE30YtRQCZX7_sCFsEpoUkFBV1gZazL70fqLn8rcvBA@mail.gmail.com
At least on my machine, a run with code coverage enabled produces some
".gcov" files whose names begin with ".". "rm -f *.gcov" fails to match
those, so they don't get cleaned up by "make clean". Fix it.
Perusal of the code coverage report shows that the existing regression
test cases for LIMIT/OFFSET don't exercise the nodeLimit code paths
involving backwards scan, empty results, or null values of LIMIT/OFFSET.
Improve the coverage.
Perusal of the code coverage report shows that the existing regression
test cases for INTERSECT and EXCEPT seemingly all prefer the SETOP_HASHED
implementation. Add some test cases in which we force use of the
SETOP_SORTED mode.
Since PostgreSQL 9.6, rolreplication no longer determines whether a role
can run pg_start_backup() and pg_stop_backup(), so remove that.
Add that this attribute determines whether a role can create and drop
replication slots.
Reported-by: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Previously the -M switch had to appear before any switch that directly
or indirectly specified a benchmarking script. This was both confusing
and inadequately documented, as per gripe from Tatsuo Ishii. We can
remove the restriction at the cost of making an extra pass over the
lists of SQL commands, which seems like a cheap price (the string scans
themselves likely cost much more). The change is just to not extract
parameters from the SQL commands until we have finished parsing the
switches and know the final value of -M.
Per discussion, we'll treat this as a low-grade bug fix and sneak it
into v10, rather than holding it for v11.
Tom Lane, reviewed by Tatsuo Ishii and Fabien Coelho
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170802.110328.1963639094551443169.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/10208.1502465077@sss.pgh.pa.us
Various bugs can cause crashes, so don't use that function before ICU
53. It will fall back to the code path used for other encodings.
Since we now tie the function availability to an ICU version, we don't
need the configure test anymore. That also resolves the issue that the
test result was previously hardcoded for Windows.
researched by Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>, Peter Geoghegan
<pg@bowt.ie>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/f1438ec6-22aa-4029-9a3b-26f79d330e72%40manitou-mail.org
The previous message didn't mention the name of the table or the
bounds. Put the table name in the primary error message and the
bounds in the detail message.
Amit Langote, changed slightly by me. Suggestions on the exac
phrasing from Tom Lane, David G. Johnston, and Dean Rasheed.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoae6bpwVa-1BMaVcwvCCeOoJ5B9Q9-RHWo-1gJxfPBZ5Q@mail.gmail.com
Many places that mentioned only Gather should also mention Gather
Merge, or should be phrased in a more neutral way. Be more clear
about the fact that max_parallel_workers_per_gather affects the number
of workers the planner may want to use. Fix a typo. Explain how
Gather Merge works. Adjust wording around parallel scans to be a bit
more clear. Adjust wording around parallel-restricted operations for
the fact that uncorrelated subplans are no longer restricted.
Patch by me, reviewed by Erik Rijkers
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZsTjgVGn=ei5ht-1qGFKy_m1VgB3d8+Rg304hz91N5ww@mail.gmail.com
