| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
This fixes many spelling mistakes in comments, but a few references to
invalid parameter names, function names and option names too in comments
and also some in string constants
Also, fix an #undef that was undefining the incorrect definition
Author: Alexander Lakhin
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d5f68d19-c0fc-91a9-118d-7c6a5a3f5fad@gmail.com
|
|
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
|
|
These are all dead code now that it's done centrally.
Patch by me; thanks to Nathan Bossart and Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1159933.1677621588@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
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
|
|
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
The rule system needs "old" and/or "new" pseudo-RTEs in rule actions
that are ON INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. Historically it's put such entries
into the ON SELECT rules of views as well, but those are really quite
vestigial. The only thing we've used them for is to carry the
view's relid forward to AcquireExecutorLocks (so that we can
re-lock the view to verify it hasn't changed before re-using a plan)
and to carry its relid and permissions data forward to execution-time
permissions checks. What we can do instead of that is to retain
these fields of the RTE_RELATION RTE for the view even after we
convert it to an RTE_SUBQUERY RTE. This requires a tiny amount of
extra complication in the planner and AcquireExecutorLocks, but on
the other hand we can get rid of the logic that moves that data from
one place to another.
The principal immediate benefit of doing this, aside from a small
saving in the pg_rewrite data for views, is that these pseudo-RTEs
no longer trigger ruleutils.c's heuristic about qualifying variable
names when the rangetable's length is more than 1. That results
in quite a number of small simplifications in regression test outputs,
which are all to the good IMO.
Bump catversion because we need to dump a few more fields of
RTE_SUBQUERY RTEs. While those will always be zeroes anyway in
stored rules (because we'd never populate them until query rewrite)
they are useful for debugging, and it seems like we'd better make
sure to transmit such RTEs accurately in plans sent to parallel
workers. I don't think the executor actually examines these fields
after startup, but someday it might.
This is a second attempt at committing 1b4d280ea. The difference
from the first time is that now we can add some filtering rules to
AdjustUpgrade.pm to allow cross-version upgrade testing to pass
despite all the cosmetic changes in CREATE VIEW outputs.
Amit Langote (filtering rules by me)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqEf7gPN4Hn+LoZ4tP2q_Qt7n3vw7-6fJKOf92tSEnX6Gg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/891521.1673657296@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
This reverts commit 1b4d280ea1eb7ddb2e16654d5fa16960bb959566.
It's broken the buildfarm members that run cross-version-upgrade tests,
because they're not prepared to deal with cosmetic differences between
CREATE VIEW commands emitted by older servers and HEAD. Even if we had
a solution to that, which we don't, it'd take some time to roll it out
to the affected animals. This improvement isn't valuable enough to
justify addressing that problem on an emergency basis, so revert it
for now.
|
|
The rule system needs "old" and/or "new" pseudo-RTEs in rule actions
that are ON INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. Historically it's put such entries
into the ON SELECT rules of views as well, but those are really quite
vestigial. The only thing we've used them for is to carry the
view's relid forward to AcquireExecutorLocks (so that we can
re-lock the view to verify it hasn't changed before re-using a plan)
and to carry its relid and permissions data forward to execution-time
permissions checks. What we can do instead of that is to retain
these fields of the RTE_RELATION RTE for the view even after we
convert it to an RTE_SUBQUERY RTE. This requires a tiny amount of
extra complication in the planner and AcquireExecutorLocks, but on
the other hand we can get rid of the logic that moves that data from
one place to another.
The principal immediate benefit of doing this, aside from a small
saving in the pg_rewrite data for views, is that these pseudo-RTEs
no longer trigger ruleutils.c's heuristic about qualifying variable
names when the rangetable's length is more than 1. That results
in quite a number of small simplifications in regression test outputs,
which are all to the good IMO.
Bump catversion because we need to dump a few more fields of
RTE_SUBQUERY RTEs. While those will always be zeroes anyway in
stored rules (because we'd never populate them until query rewrite)
they are useful for debugging, and it seems like we'd better make
sure to transmit such RTEs accurately in plans sent to parallel
workers. I don't think the executor actually examines these fields
after startup, but someday it might.
Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqEf7gPN4Hn+LoZ4tP2q_Qt7n3vw7-6fJKOf92tSEnX6Gg@mail.gmail.com
|
|
We were identifying the updatable generated columns of inheritance
children by transposing the calculation made for their parent.
However, there's nothing that says a traditional-inheritance child
can't have generated columns that aren't there in its parent, or that
have different dependencies than are in the parent's expression.
(At present it seems that we don't enforce that for partitioning
either, which is likely wrong to some degree or other; but the case
clearly needs to be handled with traditional inheritance.)
Hence, drop the very-klugy-anyway "extraUpdatedCols" RTE field
in favor of identifying which generated columns depend on updated
columns during executor startup. In HEAD we can remove
extraUpdatedCols altogether; in back branches, it's still there but
always empty. Another difference between the HEAD and back-branch
versions of this patch is that in HEAD we can add the new bitmap field
to ResultRelInfo, but that would cause an ABI break in back branches.
Like 4b3e37993, add a List field at the end of struct EState instead.
Back-patch to v13. The bogus calculation is also being made in v12,
but it doesn't have the same visible effect because we don't use it
to decide which generated columns to recalculate; as a consequence of
which the patch doesn't apply easily. I think that there might still
be a demonstrable bug associated with trigger firing conditions, but
that's such a weird corner-case usage that I'm content to leave it
unfixed in v12.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqFshLKNvQUd1DgwJ-7tsTp=dwv7KZqXC4j2wYBV1aCDUA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2793383.1672944799@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
Backpatch-through: 11
|
|
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/222b43a5-2fb3-2c1b-9cd0-375d376c8246@dunslane.net
|
|
After a61b1f74823c.
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqGZm7hb2VAy8HGM22-fTDaQzqE6T=5GbAk=GkT9H0hJEg@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Currently, information about the permissions to be checked on relations
mentioned in a query is stored in their range table entries. So the
executor must scan the entire range table looking for relations that
need to have permissions checked. This can make the permission checking
part of the executor initialization needlessly expensive when many
inheritance children are present in the range range. While the
permissions need not be checked on the individual child relations, the
executor still must visit every range table entry to filter them out.
This commit moves the permission checking information out of the range
table entries into a new plan node called RTEPermissionInfo. Every
top-level (inheritance "root") RTE_RELATION entry in the range table
gets one and a list of those is maintained alongside the range table.
This new list is initialized by the parser when initializing the range
table. The rewriter can add more entries to it as rules/views are
expanded. Finally, the planner combines the lists of the individual
subqueries into one flat list that is passed to the executor for
checking.
To make it quick to find the RTEPermissionInfo entry belonging to a
given relation, RangeTblEntry gets a new Index field 'perminfoindex'
that stores the corresponding RTEPermissionInfo's index in the query's
list of the latter.
ExecutorCheckPerms_hook has gained another List * argument; the
signature is now:
typedef bool (*ExecutorCheckPerms_hook_type) (List *rangeTable,
List *rtePermInfos,
bool ereport_on_violation);
The first argument is no longer used by any in-core uses of the hook,
but we leave it in place because there may be other implementations that
do. Implementations should likely scan the rtePermInfos list to
determine which operations to allow or deny.
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqGjJDmUhDSfv-U2qhKJjt9ST7Xh9JXC_irsAQ1TAUsJYg@mail.gmail.com
|
|
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
|
|
Up to now we have allowed manual creation of an ON SELECT rule on
a table to convert it into a view. That was never anything but a
horrid, error-prone hack though. pg_dump used to rely on that
behavior to deal with cases involving circular dependencies,
where a dependency loop could be broken by separating the creation
of a view from installation of its ON SELECT rule. However, we
changed pg_dump to use CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW for that in commit
d8c05aff5 (which was later back-patched as far as 9.4), so there's
not a good argument anymore for continuing to support the behavior.
The proximate reason for axing it now is that we found that the
new statistics code has failure modes associated with the relkind
change caused by this behavior. We'll patch around that in v15,
but going forward it seems like a better idea to get rid of the
need to support relkind changes.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALDaNm2yXz+zOtv7y5zBd5WKT8O0Ld3YxikuU3dcyCvxF7gypA@mail.gmail.com
|
|
A future commit will move the checkAsUser field from RangeTblEntry
to a new node that, unlike RTEs, will only be created for tables
mentioned in the query but not for the inheritance child relations
added to the query by the planner. So, checkAsUser value for a
given child relation will have to be obtained by referring to that
for its ancestor mentioned in the query.
In preparation, it seems better to expand the use of RelOptInfo.userid
during planning in place of rte->checkAsUser so that there will be
fewer places to adjust for the above change.
Given that the child-to-ancestor mapping is not available during the
execution of a given "child" ForeignScan node, add a checkAsUser
field to ForeignScan to carry the child relation's RelOptInfo.userid.
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqGFCs2uq7VRKi7g+FFKbP6Ea_2_HkgZb2HPhUfaAKT3ng@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Instead of dozens of mostly-duplicate pg_foo_ownercheck() functions,
write one common function object_ownercheck() that can handle almost
all of them. We already have all the information we need, such as
which system catalog corresponds to which catalog table and which
column is the owner column.
Reviewed-by: Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/95c30f96-4060-2f48-98b5-a4392d3b6066@enterprisedb.com
|
|
DefineQueryRewrite() has long required that ON SELECT rules be named
"_RETURN". But we overlooked the converse case: we should forbid
non-ON-SELECT rules that are named "_RETURN". In particular this
prevents using CREATE OR REPLACE RULE to overwrite a view's _RETURN
rule with some other kind of rule, thereby breaking the view.
Per bug #17646 from Kui Liu. Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17646-70c93cfa40365776@postgresql.org
|
|
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
|
|
Autoconf is showing its age, fewer and fewer contributors know how to wrangle
it. Recursive make has a lot of hard to resolve dependency issues and slow
incremental rebuilds. Our home-grown MSVC build system is hard to maintain for
developers not using Windows and runs tests serially. While these and other
issues could individually be addressed with incremental improvements, together
they seem best addressed by moving to a more modern build system.
After evaluating different build system choices, we chose to use meson, to a
good degree based on the adoption by other open source projects.
We decided that it's more realistic to commit a relatively early version of
the new build system and mature it in tree.
This commit adds an initial version of a meson based build system. It supports
building postgres on at least AIX, FreeBSD, Linux, macOS, NetBSD, OpenBSD,
Solaris and Windows (however only gcc is supported on aix, solaris). For
Windows/MSVC postgres can now be built with ninja (faster, particularly for
incremental builds) and msbuild (supporting the visual studio GUI, but
building slower).
Several aspects (e.g. Windows rc file generation, PGXS compatibility, LLVM
bitcode generation, documentation adjustments) are done in subsequent commits
requiring further review. Other aspects (e.g. not installing test-only
extensions) are not yet addressed.
When building on Windows with msbuild, builds are slower when using a visual
studio version older than 2019, because those versions do not support
MultiToolTask, required by meson for intra-target parallelism.
The plan is to remove the MSVC specific build system in src/tools/msvc soon
after reaching feature parity. However, we're not planning to remove the
autoconf/make build system in the near future. Likely we're going to keep at
least the parts required for PGXS to keep working around until all supported
versions build with meson.
Some initial help for postgres developers is at
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Meson
With contributions from Thomas Munro, John Naylor, Stone Tickle and others.
Author: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Author: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
Author: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Reviewed-By: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20211012083721.hvixq4pnh2pixr3j@alap3.anarazel.de
|
|
While at it, make ellipses formatting consistent when describing SQL statements.
Ekaterina Kiryanova and Alexander Lakhin
Reviewed by myself and Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/eed5cec0-a542-53da-6a5e-7789c6ed9817%40postgrespro.ru
Backpatch only the grammar fix to v15
|
|
In a similar effort to f01592f91, here we're targetting fixing the
warnings where we've deemed the shadowing variable to serve a close enough
purpose to the shadowed variable just to reuse the shadowed version and
not declare the shadowing variable at all.
By my count, this takes the warning count from 106 down to 71.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220825020839.GT2342@telsasoft.com
|
|
The standard way to check for list emptiness is to compare the
List pointer to NIL; our list code goes out of its way to ensure
that that is the only representation of an empty list. (An
acceptable alternative is a plain boolean test for non-null
pointer, but explicit mention of NIL is usually preferable.)
Various places didn't get that memo and expressed the condition
with list_length(), which might not be so bad except that there
were such a variety of ways to check it exactly: equal to zero,
less than or equal to zero, less than one, yadda yadda. In the
name of code readability, let's standardize all those spellings
as "list == NIL" or "list != NIL". (There's probably some
microscopic efficiency gain too, though few of these look to be
at all performance-critical.)
A very small number of cases were left as-is because they seemed
more consistent with other adjacent list_length tests that way.
Peter Smith, with bikeshedding from a number of us
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHut+PtQYe+ENX5KrONMfugf0q6NHg4hR5dAhqEXEc2eefFeig@mail.gmail.com
|
|
This replaces all MemSet() calls with struct initialization where that
is easily and obviously possible. (For example, some cases have to
worry about padding bits, so I left those.)
(The same could be done with appropriate memset() calls, but this
patch is part of an effort to phase out MemSet(), so it doesn't touch
memset() calls.)
Reviewed-by: Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9847b13c-b785-f4e2-75c3-12ec77a3b05c@enterprisedb.com
|
|
This function looks for a reference to the recursive WITH CTE,
but it checked only the CTE name not ctelevelsup, so that it could
seize on a lower CTE that happened to have the same name. This
would result in planner failures later, either weird errors such as
"could not find attribute 2 in subquery targetlist", or crashes
or assertion failures. The code also merely Assert'ed that it found
a matching entry, which is not guaranteed at all by the parser.
Per bugs #17320 and #17318 from Zhiyong Wu.
Thanks to Kyotaro Horiguchi for investigation.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17320-70e37868182512ab@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17318-2eb65a3a611d2368@postgresql.org
|
|
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 otherwise
require multiple PL statements. For example,
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 tables, partitioned tables and inheritance
hierarchies, including column and row security enforcement, as well as
support for row and statement triggers and transition tables therein.
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 from PL/pgSQL.
MERGE does not support targetting updatable views or foreign tables, and
RETURNING clauses are not allowed either. These limitations are likely
fixable with sufficient effort. Rewrite rules are also not supported,
but it's not clear that we'd want to support them.
Author: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Author: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> (earlier versions)
Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> (earlier versions)
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> (earlier versions)
Reviewed-by: Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANP8+jKitBSrB7oTgT9CY2i1ObfOt36z0XMraQc+Xrz8QB0nXA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkJdBuxj9PO=2QaO9-3h3xGbQPZ34kJH=HukRekwM-GZg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20201231134736.GA25392@alvherre.pgsql
|
|
A security invoker view checks permissions for accessing its
underlying base relations using the privileges of the user of the
view, rather than the privileges of the view owner. Additionally, if
any of the base relations are tables with RLS enabled, the policies of
the user of the view are applied, rather than those of the view owner.
This allows views to be defined without giving away additional
privileges on the underlying base relations, and matches a similar
feature available in other database systems.
It also allows views to operate more naturally with RLS, without
affecting the assignments of policies to users.
Christoph Heiss, with some additional hacking by me. Reviewed by
Laurenz Albe and Wolfgang Walther.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b66dd6d6-ad3e-c6f2-8b90-47be773da240%40cybertec.at
|
|
If a RowExpr is marked as returning a named composite type, we aren't
going to consult its colnames list; we'll use the attribute names
shown for the type in pg_attribute. Hence, skip storing that list,
to save a few nanoseconds when copying the expression tree around.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2950001.1638729947@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
Backpatch-through: 10
|
|
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
|
|
Commit 01e658fa74 added hash support for row types. This also added
support for hashing anonymous record types, using the same approach
that the type cache uses for comparison support for record types: It
just reports that it works, but it might fail at run time if a
component type doesn't actually support the operation. We get away
with that for comparison because most types support that. But some
types don't support hashing, so the current state can result in
failures at run time where the planner chooses hashing over sorting,
whereas that previously worked if only sorting was an option.
We do, however, want the record hashing support for path tracking in
recursive unions, and the SEARCH and CYCLE clauses built on that. In
that case, hashing is the only plan option. So enable that, this
commit implements the following approach: The type cache does not
report that hashing is available for the record type. This undoes
that part of 01e658fa74. Instead, callers that require hashing no
matter what can override that result themselves. This patch only
touches the callers to make the aforementioned recursive query cases
work, namely the parse analysis of unions, as well as the hash_array()
function.
Reported-by: Sait Talha Nisanci <sait.nisanci@microsoft.com>
Bug: #17158
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/17158-8a2ba823982537a4%40postgresql.org
|
|
Instead of castNode(…, lfoo(…))
Author: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/87eecahraj.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org
|
|
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
|
|
Most error messages about a relkind that was not supported or
appropriate for the command was of the pattern
"relation \"%s\" is not a table, foreign table, or materialized view"
This style can become verbose and tedious to maintain. Moreover, it's
not very helpful: If I'm trying to create a comment on a TOAST table,
which is not supported, then the information that I could have created
a comment on a materialized view is pointless.
Instead, write the primary error message shorter and saying more
directly that what was attempted is not possible. Then, in the detail
message, explain that the operation is not supported for the relkind
the object was. To simplify that, add a new function
errdetail_relkind_not_supported() that does this.
In passing, make use of RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE() where appropriate,
instead of listing out the relkinds individually.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/dc35a398-37d0-75ce-07ea-1dd71d98f8ec@2ndquadrant.com
|
|
A few patches committed after ca3b37487 mistakenly forgot to make the
copyright year 2021. Fix these.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvqyLmd9P2oBQYJ=DbrV8QwyPRdmXtCTFYPE08h+ip0UJw@mail.gmail.com
|
|
became unused by 04942bffd0aa9bd0d143d99b473342eb9ecee88b
|
|
Commit 2ec993a7c, which added triggers on views, modified the rewriter
to add dummy entries like "SET x = x" for all columns that weren't
actually being updated by the user in any UPDATE directed at a view.
That was needed at the time to produce a complete "NEW" row to pass
to the trigger. Later it was found to cause problems for ordinary
updatable views, so commit cab5dc5da restricted it to happen only for
trigger-updatable views. But in the wake of commit 86dc90056, we
really don't need it at all. nodeModifyTable.c populates the trigger
"OLD" row from the whole-row variable that is generated for the view,
and then it computes the "NEW" row using that old row and the UPDATE
targetlist. So there is no need for the UPDATE tlist to have dummy
entries, any more than it needs them for regular tables or other
types of views.
(The comments for rewriteTargetListIU suggest that we must do this
for correct expansion of NEW references in rules, but I now think
that that was just lazy comment editing in 2ec993a7c. If we didn't
need it for rules on views before there were triggers, we don't need
it after that.)
This essentially propagates 86dc90056's decision that we don't need
dummy column updates into the view case. Aside from making the
different cases more uniform and hence possibly forestalling future
bugs, it ought to save a little bit of rewriter/planner effort.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2181213.1619397634@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
This function's behavior for UPDATE on a trigger-updatable view was
justified by analogy to what preptlist.c used to do for UPDATE on
regular tables. Since preptlist.c hasn't done that since 86dc90056,
that argument is no longer sensible, let alone convincing. I think
we do still need it to act that way, so update the comment to explain
why.
|
|
|
|
Author: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210416070310.GG3315@telsasoft.com
|
|
Andrew Gierth reported that it's possible to crash the backend if no
pg_attrdef record is found to match an attribute that has atthasdef set.
AttrDefaultFetch warns about this situation, but then leaves behind
a relation tupdesc that has null "adbin" pointer(s), which most places
don't guard against.
We considered promoting the warning to an error, but throwing errors
during relcache load is pretty drastic: it effectively locks one out
of using the relation at all. What seems better is to leave the
load-time behavior as a warning, but then throw an error in any code
path that wants to use a default and can't find it. This confines
the error to a subset of INSERT/UPDATE operations on the table, and
in particular will at least allow a pg_dump to succeed.
Also, we should fix AttrDefaultFetch to not leave any null pointers
in the tupdesc, because that just creates an untested bug hazard.
While at it, apply the same philosophy of "warn at load, throw error
only upon use of the known-missing info" to CHECK constraints.
CheckConstraintFetch is very nearly the same logic as AttrDefaultFetch,
but for reasons lost in the mists of time, it was throwing ERROR for
the same cases that AttrDefaultFetch treats as WARNING. Make the two
functions more nearly alike.
In passing, get rid of potentially-O(N^2) loops in equalTupleDesc
by making AttrDefaultFetch sort the entries after fetching them,
so that equalTupleDesc can assume that entries in two equal tupdescs
must be in matching order. (CheckConstraintFetch already was sorting
CHECK constraints, but equalTupleDesc hadn't been told about it.)
There's some argument for back-patching this, but with such a small
number of field reports, I'm content to fix it in HEAD.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87pmzaq4gx.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
|
|
This patch makes two closely related sets of changes:
1. For UPDATE, the subplan of the ModifyTable node now only delivers
the new values of the changed columns (i.e., the expressions computed
in the query's SET clause) plus row identity information such as CTID.
ModifyTable must re-fetch the original tuple to merge in the old
values of any unchanged columns. The core advantage of this is that
the changed columns are uniform across all tables of an inherited or
partitioned target relation, whereas the other columns might not be.
A secondary advantage, when the UPDATE involves joins, is that less
data needs to pass through the plan tree. The disadvantage of course
is an extra fetch of each tuple to be updated. However, that seems to
be very nearly free in context; even worst-case tests don't show it to
add more than a couple percent to the total query cost. At some point
it might be interesting to combine the re-fetch with the tuple access
that ModifyTable must do anyway to mark the old tuple dead; but that
would require a good deal of refactoring and it seems it wouldn't buy
all that much, so this patch doesn't attempt it.
2. For inherited UPDATE/DELETE, instead of generating a separate
subplan for each target relation, we now generate a single subplan
that is just exactly like a SELECT's plan, then stick ModifyTable
on top of that. To let ModifyTable know which target relation a
given incoming row refers to, a tableoid junk column is added to
the row identity information. This gets rid of the horrid hack
that was inheritance_planner(), eliminating O(N^2) planning cost
and memory consumption in cases where there were many unprunable
target relations.
Point 2 of course requires point 1, so that there is a uniform
definition of the non-junk columns to be returned by the subplan.
We can't insist on uniform definition of the row identity junk
columns however, if we want to keep the ability to have both
plain and foreign tables in a partitioning hierarchy. Since
it wouldn't scale very far to have every child table have its
own row identity column, this patch includes provisions to merge
similar row identity columns into one column of the subplan result.
In particular, we can merge the whole-row Vars typically used as
row identity by FDWs into one column by pretending they are type
RECORD. (It's still okay for the actual composite Datums to be
labeled with the table's rowtype OID, though.)
There is more that can be done to file down residual inefficiencies
in this patch, but it seems to be committable now.
FDW authors should note several API changes:
* The argument list for AddForeignUpdateTargets() has changed, and so
has the method it must use for adding junk columns to the query. Call
add_row_identity_var() instead of manipulating the parse tree directly.
You might want to reconsider exactly what you're adding, too.
* PlanDirectModify() must now work a little harder to find the
ForeignScan plan node; if the foreign table is part of a partitioning
hierarchy then the ForeignScan might not be the direct child of
ModifyTable. See postgres_fdw for sample code.
* To check whether a relation is a target relation, it's no
longer sufficient to compare its relid to root->parse->resultRelation.
Instead, check it against all_result_relids or leaf_result_relids,
as appropriate.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqHpHdqdDn48yCEhynnniahH78rwcrv1rEX65-fsZGBOLQ@mail.gmail.com
|
|
This reverts commit ed290896335414c6c069b9ccae1f3dcdd2fac6ba and
equivalent back-branch commits. The issue is subtler than I thought,
and it's far from new, so just before a release deadline is no time
to be fooling with it. We'll consider what to do at a bit more
leisure.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJcOf-fAdj=nDKMsRhQzndm-O13NY4dL6xGcEvdX5Xvbbi0V7g@mail.gmail.com
|
|
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
|
|
Generally, members of inheritance trees must be plain tables (or,
in more recent versions, foreign tables). ALTER TABLE INHERIT
rejects creating an inheritance relationship that has a view at
either end. When DefineQueryRewrite attempts to convert a relation
to a view, it already had checks prohibiting doing so for partitioning
parents or children as well as traditional-inheritance parents ...
but it neglected to check that a traditional-inheritance child wasn't
being converted. Since the planner assumes that any inheritance
child is a table, this led to making plans that tried to do a physical
scan on a view, causing failures (or even crashes, in recent versions).
One could imagine trying to support such a case by expanding the view
normally, but since the rewriter runs before the planner does
inheritance expansion, it would take some very fundamental refactoring
to make that possible. There are probably a lot of other parts of the
system that don't cope well with such a situation, too. For now,
just forbid it.
Per bug #16856 from Yang Lin. Back-patch to all supported branches.
(In versions before v10, this includes back-patching the portion of
commit 501ed02cf that added has_superclass(). Perhaps the lack of
that infrastructure partially explains the missing check.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16856-0363e05c6e1612fd@postgresql.org
|
|
This adds the SQL standard feature that adds the SEARCH and CYCLE
clauses to recursive queries to be able to do produce breadth- or
depth-first search orders and detect cycles. These clauses can be
rewritten into queries using existing syntax, and that is what this
patch does in the rewriter.
Reviewed-by: Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>
Reviewed-by: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/db80ceee-6f97-9b4a-8ee8-3ba0c58e5be2@2ndquadrant.com
|
|
Backpatch-through: 9.5
|
|
Clarify that you can "insert" into a generated column as long as what
you're inserting is a DEFAULT placeholder.
Also, use ERRCODE_GENERATED_ALWAYS in place of ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR;
there doesn't seem to be any reason to use the less specific errcode.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9q0sgcr416t.fsf@gmx.us
|
|
One can say "INSERT INTO tab(generated_col) VALUES (DEFAULT)" and not
draw an error. But the equivalent case for a multi-row VALUES list
always threw an error, even if one properly said DEFAULT in each row.
Fix that. While here, improve the test cases for nearby logic about
OVERRIDING SYSTEM/USER values.
Dean Rasheed
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9q0sgcr416t.fsf@gmx.us
|
