Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFcNs+pJ6_Ud-zg3vY_Y0mzfESdM34Humt8avKrAKq_H+v18Cg@mail.gmail.com
Source-Git-URL: git://git.postgresql.org/git/pgtranslation/messages.git Source-Git-Hash: ef3340570fcdce8fd9695fa85904448acdb92e06
2cd70845240 / c6293249d change the way individual attributes in a TupleDesc are stored / accessed. To reduce the effort of making extensions compatible with postgresql 11, and to ease future backpatching, backpatch introduction of TupleDescAttr() to all releases. Do not backpatch change in storage, as that'd be a breaking change for existing and working extensions. Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170820181723.tdswdinzptbcwhrr@alap3.anarazel.de Backpatch: 9.2-
Commit 3eb9a5e7c unintentionally introduced an ordering dependency into restore_toc_entries_prefork(). The existing coding of reduce_dependencies() contains a check to skip moving a TOC entry to the ready_list if it wasn't initially in the pending_list. This used to suffice to prevent reduce_dependencies() from trying to move anything into the ready_list during restore_toc_entries_prefork(), because the pending_list stayed empty throughout that phase; but it no longer does. The problem doesn't manifest unless the TOC has been reordered by SortTocFromFile, which is how I missed it in testing. To fix, just add a test for ready_list == NULL, converting the call with NULL from a poor man's sanity check into an explicit command not to touch TOC items' list membership. Clarify some of the comments around this; in particular, note the primary purpose of the check for pending_list membership, which is to ensure that we can't try to restore the same item twice, in case a TOC list forces it to be restored before its dependency count goes to zero. Per report from FabrÃzio de Royes Mello. Back-patch to 9.3, like the previous commit. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFcNs+pjuv0JL_x4+=71TPUPjdLHOXA4YfT32myj_OrrZb4ohA@mail.gmail.com
It now emerges that we can only rely on Perl to tell us we must use -D_USE_32BIT_TIME_T if it's Perl 5.13.4 or later. For older versions, revert to our previous practice of assuming we need that symbol in all 32-bit Windows builds. This is not ideal, but inquiring into which compiler version Perl was built with seems far too fragile. In any case, we had not previously had complaints about these old Perl versions, so let's assume this is Good Enough. (It's still better than the situation ante commit 5a5c2feca, in that at least the effects are confined to PL/Perl rather than the whole PG build.) Back-patch to all supported versions, like 5a5c2feca and predecessors. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANFyU97OVQ3+Mzfmt3MhuUm5NwPU=-FtbNH5Eb7nZL9ua8=rcA@mail.gmail.com
This appears to have been an omission in the original commit 0d692a0dc9f. All related information_schema views already include foreign tables. Reported-by: Nicolas Thauvin <nicolas.thauvin@dalibo.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