Due to lack of concern for the case in the dependency code, it's
possible to drop a column of a composite type even though stored
queries have references to the dropped column via functions-in-FROM
that return the composite type. There are "soft" references,
namely FROM-clause aliases for such columns, and "hard" references,
that is actual Vars referring to them. The right fix for hard
references is to add dependencies preventing the drop; something
we've known for many years and not done (and this commit still doesn't
address it). A "soft" reference shouldn't prevent a drop though.
We've been around on this before (cf. 9b35ddce9, 2c4debbd0), but
nobody had noticed that the current behavior can result in dump/reload
failures, because ruleutils.c can print more column aliases than the
underlying composite type now has. So we need to rejigger the
column-alias-handling code to treat such columns as dropped and not
print aliases for them.
Rather than writing new code for this, I used expandRTE() which already
knows how to figure out which function result columns are dropped.
I'd initially thought maybe we could use expandRTE() in all cases, but
that fails for EXPLAIN's purposes, because the planner strips a lot of
RTE infrastructure that expandRTE() needs. So this patch just uses it
for unplanned function RTEs and otherwise does things the old way.
If there is a hard reference (Var), then removing the column alias
causes us to fail to print the Var, since there's no longer a name
to print. Failing seems less desirable than printing a made-up
name, so I made it print "?dropped?column?" instead.
Per report from Timo Stolz. Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5c91267e-3b6d-5795-189c-d15a55d61dbb@nullachtvierzehn.de
When locking a specific named relation for a FOR [KEY] UPDATE/SHARE
clause, transformLockingClause() finds the relation to lock by
scanning the rangetable for an RTE with a matching eref->aliasname.
However, it failed to account for the visibility rules of a join RTE.
If a join RTE doesn't have a user-supplied alias, it will have a
generated eref->aliasname of "unnamed_join" that is not visible as a
relation name in the parse namespace. Such an RTE needs to be skipped,
otherwise it might be found in preference to a regular base relation
with a user-supplied alias of "unnamed_join", preventing it from being
locked.
In addition, if a join RTE doesn't have a user-supplied alias, but
does have a join_using_alias, then the RTE needs to be matched using
that alias rather than the generated eref->aliasname, otherwise a
misleading "relation not found" error will be reported rather than a
"join cannot be locked" error.
Backpatch all the way, except for the second part which only goes back
to 14, where JOIN USING aliases were added.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Tom Lane.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCUY_KOBnqxbTSPf=7fz9HWPnZ5Xgb9SwYzZ8rFXe7nb=w@mail.gmail.com
A new plpgsql test function was added in 14 and up to cover for a bugfix
that was not backpatchable. We can add it to older versions as a way to
cover other bits of DDL event triggers, with an exception clause to
avoid the problematic corner case.
Originally authored by Michaël Paquier.
Backpatch: 10 through 13.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/202205201523.7m5jbfvyanmj@alvherre.pgsql
We weren't checking the length of the column list in the alias clause of
an XMLTABLE or JSON_TABLE function (a "tablefunc" RTE), and it was
possible to make the server crash by passing an overly long one. Fix it
by throwing an error in that case, like the other places that deal with
alias lists.
In passing, modify the equivalent test used for join RTEs to look like
the other ones, which was different for no apparent reason.
This bug came in when XMLTABLE was born in version 10; backpatch to all
stable versions.
Reported-by: Wang Ke <krking@zju.edu.cn>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17480-1c9d73565bb28e90@postgresql.org
This follows in the footsteps of commit 2591ee8ec by removing one more
ill-advised shortcut from planning of GroupingFuncs. It's true that
we don't intend to execute the argument expression(s) at runtime, but
we still have to process any Vars appearing within them, or we risk
failure at setrefs.c time (or more fundamentally, in EXPLAIN trying
to print such an expression). Vars in upper plan nodes have to have
referents in the next plan level, whether we ever execute 'em or not.
Per bug #17479 from Michael J. Sullivan. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17479-6260deceaf0ad304@postgresql.org
The parser code that transformed VALUES from row-oriented to
column-oriented lists failed if there were zero columns.
You can't write that straightforwardly (though probably you
should be able to), but the case can be reached by expanding
a "tab.*" reference to a zero-column table.
Per bug #17477 from Wang Ke. Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17477-0af3c6ac6b0a6ae0@postgresql.org
This reverts commit eafdf9de06e9b60168f5e47cedcfceecdc6d4b5f
and its back-branch counterparts. Corey Huinker pointed out that
we'd discussed this exact change back in 2016 and rejected it,
on the grounds that there's at least one usage pattern with LIMIT
where an infinite endpoint can usefully be used. Perhaps that
argument needs to be re-litigated, but there's no time left before
our back-branch releases. To keep our options open, restore the
status quo ante; if we do end up deciding to change things, waiting
one more quarter won't hurt anything.
Rather than just doing a straight revert, I added a new test case
demonstrating the usage with LIMIT. That'll at least remind us of
the issue if we forget again.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3603504.1652068977@sss.pgh.pa.us
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADkLM=dzw0Pvdqp5yWKxMd+VmNkAMhG=4ku7GnCZxebWnzmz3Q@mail.gmail.com
It intended to, but did not, achieve this. Adopt the new standard of
setting user ID just after locking the relation. Back-patch to v10 (all
supported versions).
Reviewed by Simon Riggs. Reported by Alvaro Herrera.
Security: CVE-2022-1552
When a feature enumerates relations and runs functions associated with
all found relations, the feature's user shall not need to trust every
user having permission to create objects. BRIN-specific functionality
in autovacuum neglected to account for this, as did pg_amcheck and
CLUSTER. An attacker having permission to create non-temp objects in at
least one schema could execute arbitrary SQL functions under the
identity of the bootstrap superuser. CREATE INDEX (not a
relation-enumerating operation) and REINDEX protected themselves too
late. This change extends to the non-enumerating amcheck interface.
Back-patch to v10 (all supported versions).
Sergey Shinderuk, reviewed (in earlier versions) by Alexander Lakhin.
Reported by Alexander Lakhin.
Security: CVE-2022-1552
CLUSTER sort won't use the datum1 SortTuple field when clustering
against an index whose leading key is an expression. This makes it
unsafe to use the abbreviated keys optimization, which was missed by the
logic that sets up SortSupport state. Affected tuplesorts output tuples
in a completely bogus order as a result (the wrong SortSupport based
comparator was used for the leading attribute).
This issue is similar to the bug fixed on the master branch by recent
commit cc58eecc5d. But it's a far older issue, that dates back to the
introduction of the abbreviated keys optimization by commit 4ea51cdfe8.
Backpatch to all supported versions.
Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Author: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+hUKG+bA+bmwD36_oDxAoLrCwZjVtST2fqe=b4=qZcmU7u89A@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 10-
Such cases will lead to infinite loops, so they're of no practical
value. The numeric variant of generate_series() already threw error
for this, so borrow its message wording.
Per report from Richard Wesley. Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/91B44E7B-68D5-448F-95C8-B4B3B0F5DEAF@duckdblabs.com
The planner needs to treat GroupingFunc like Aggref for many purposes,
in particular with respect to processing of the argument expressions,
which are not to be evaluated at runtime. A few places hadn't gotten
that memo, notably including subselect.c's processing of outer-level
aggregates. This resulted in assertion failures or wrong plans for
cases in which a GROUPING() construct references an outer aggregation
level.
Also fix missing special cases for GroupingFunc in cost_qual_eval
(resulting in wrong cost estimates for GROUPING(), although it's
not clear that that would affect plan shapes in practice) and in
ruleutils.c (resulting in excess parentheses in pretty-print mode).
Per bug #17088 from Yaoguang Chen. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Richard Guo, Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17088-e33882b387de7f5c@postgresql.org
The output of table_to_xmlschema() and allied functions includes
a regex describing valid values for these types ... but the regex
was itself invalid, as it failed to escape a literal "+" sign.
Report and fix by Renan Soares Lopes. Back-patch to all
supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7f6fabaa-3f8f-49ab-89ca-59fbfe633105@me.com
In commit bf7ca1587, I had the bright idea that we could make the
result of a whole-row Var (that is, foo.*) track any column aliases
that had been applied to the FROM entry the Var refers to. However,
that's not terribly logically consistent, because now the output of
the Var is no longer of the named composite type that the Var claims
to emit. bf7ca1587 tried to handle that by changing the output
tuple values to be labeled with a blessed RECORD type, but that's
really pretty disastrous: we can wind up storing such tuples onto
disk, whereupon they're not readable by other sessions.
The only practical fix I can see is to give up on what bf7ca1587
tried to do, and say that the column names of tuples produced by
a whole-row Var are always those of the underlying named composite
type, query aliases or no. While this introduces some inconsistencies,
it removes others, so it's not that awful in the abstract. What *is*
kind of awful is to make such a behavioral change in a back-patched
bug fix. But corrupt data is worse, so back-patched it will be.
(A workaround available to anyone who's unhappy about this is to
introduce an extra level of sub-SELECT, so that the whole-row Var is
referring to the sub-SELECT's output and not to a named table type.
Then the Var is of type RECORD to begin with and there's no issue.)
Per report from Miles Delahunty. The faulty commit dates to 9.5,
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2950001.1638729947@sss.pgh.pa.us
createplan.c tries to save a runtime projection step by specifying
a scan plan node's output as being exactly the table's columns, or
index's columns in the case of an index-only scan, if there is not a
reason to do otherwise. This logic did not previously pay attention
to whether an index's columns are returnable. That worked, sort of
accidentally, until commit 9a3ddeb51 taught setrefs.c to reject plans
that try to read a non-returnable column. I have no desire to loosen
setrefs.c's new check, so instead adjust use_physical_tlist() to not
try to optimize this way when there are non-returnable column(s).
Per report from Ryan Kelly. Like the previous patch, back-patch
to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHUie24ddN+pDNw7fkhNrjrwAX=fXXfGZZEHhRuofV_N_ftaSg@mail.gmail.com
Commit 859b3003de disabled building of extended stats for inheritance
trees, to prevent updating the same catalog row twice. While that
resolved the issue, it also means there are no extended stats for
declaratively partitioned tables, because there are no data in the
non-leaf relations.
That also means declaratively partitioned tables were not affected by
the issue 859b3003de addressed, which means this is a regression
affecting queries that calculate estimates for the whole inheritance
tree as a whole (which includes e.g. GROUP BY queries).
But because partitioned tables are empty, we can invert the condition
and build statistics only for the case with inheritance, without losing
anything. And we can consider them when calculating estimates.
It may be necessary to run ANALYZE on partitioned tables, to collect
proper statistics. For declarative partitioning there should no prior
statistics, and it might take time before autoanalyze is triggered. For
tables partitioned by inheritance the statistics may include data from
child relations (if built 859b3003de), contradicting the current code.
Report and patch by Justin Pryzby, minor fixes and cleanup by me.
Backpatch all the way back to PostgreSQL 10, where extended statistics
were introduced (same as 859b3003de).
Author: Justin Pryzby
Reported-by: Justin Pryzby
Backpatch-through: 10
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210923212624.GI831%40telsasoft.com
Since commit 859b3003de we only build extended statistics for individual
relations, ignoring the child relations. This resolved the issue with
updating catalog tuple twice, but we still tried to use the statistics
when calculating estimates for the whole inheritance tree. When the
relations contain very distinct data, it may produce bogus estimates.
This is roughly the same issue 427c6b5b9 addressed ~15 years ago, and we
fix it the same way - by ignoring extended statistics when calculating
estimates for the inheritance tree as a whole. We still consider
extended statistics when calculating estimates for individual child
relations, of course.
This may result in plan changes due to different estimates, but if the
old statistics were not describing the inheritance tree particularly
well it's quite likely the new plans is actually better.
Report and patch by Justin Pryzby, minor fixes and cleanup by me.
Backpatch all the way back to PostgreSQL 10, where extended statistics
were introduced (same as 859b3003de).
Author: Justin Pryzby
Reported-by: Justin Pryzby
Backpatch-through: 10
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210923212624.GI831%40telsasoft.com
Commit 7745bc352 intended to ensure that whole-row Vars would be
printed with "::type" decoration in all contexts where plain
"var.*" notation would result in star-expansion, notably in
ROW() and VALUES() constructs. However, it missed the case of
INSERT with a single-row VALUES, as reported by Timur Khanjanov.
Nosing around ruleutils.c, I found a second oversight: the
code for RowCompareExpr generates ROW() notation without benefit
of an actual RowExpr, and naturally it wasn't in sync :-(.
(The code for FieldStore also does this, but we don't expect that
to generate strictly parsable SQL anyway, so I left it alone.)
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/efaba6f9-4190-56be-8ff2-7a1674f9194f@intrans.baku.az
We disallow altering a column datatype within a regular table,
if the table's rowtype is used as a column type elsewhere,
because we lack code to go around and rewrite the other tables.
This restriction should apply to partitioned tables as well, but it
was not checked because ATRewriteTables and ATPrepAlterColumnType
were not on the same page about who should do it for which relkinds.
Per bug #17351 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17351-6db1870f3f4f612a@postgresql.org
Commit 4ace45677 failed to fix the problem fully, because the
same issue of attempting to fetch a non-returnable index column
can occur when rechecking the indexqual after using a lossy index
operator. Moreover, it broke EXPLAIN for such indexquals (which
indicates a gap in our test cases :-().
Revert the code changes of 4ace45677 in favor of adding a new field
to struct IndexOnlyScan, containing a version of the indexqual that
can be executed against the index-returned tuple without using any
non-returnable columns. (The restrictions imposed by check_index_only
guarantee this is possible, although we may have to recompute indexed
expressions.) Support construction of that during setrefs.c
processing by marking IndexOnlyScan.indextlist entries as resjunk
if they can't be returned, rather than removing them entirely.
(We could alternatively require setrefs.c to look up the IndexOptInfo
again, but abusing resjunk this way seems like a reasonably safe way
to avoid needing to do that.)
This solution isn't great from an API-stability standpoint: if there
are any extensions out there that build IndexOnlyScan structs directly,
they'll be broken in the next minor releases. However, only a very
invasive extension would be likely to do such a thing. There's no
change in the Path representation, so typical planner extensions
shouldn't have a problem.
As before, back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3179992.1641150853@sss.pgh.pa.us
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17350-b5bdcf476e5badbb@postgresql.org
If an index has both returnable and non-returnable columns, and one of
the non-returnable columns is an expression using a Var that is in a
returnable column, then a query returning that expression could result
in an index-only scan plan that attempts to read the non-returnable
column, instead of recomputing the expression from the returnable
column as intended.
To fix, redefine the "indextlist" list of an IndexOnlyScan plan node
as containing null Consts in place of any non-returnable columns.
This solves the problem by preventing setrefs.c from falsely matching
to such entries. The executor is happy since it only cares about the
exposed types of the entries, and ruleutils.c doesn't care because a
correct plan won't reference those entries. I considered some other
ways to prevent setrefs.c from doing the wrong thing, but this way
seems good since (a) it allows a very localized fix, (b) it makes
the indextlist structure more compact in many cases, and (c) the
indextlist is now a more faithful representation of what the index AM
will actually produce, viz. nulls for any non-returnable columns.
This is easier to hit since we introduced included columns, but it's
possible to construct failing examples without that, as per the
added regression test. Hence, back-patch to all supported branches.
Per bug #17350 from Louis Jachiet.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17350-b5bdcf476e5badbb@postgresql.org
Fix the code changed by commit 5c056b0c2 so that we always generate
RelabelType, not something else, for a cast to unspecified typmod.
Otherwise planner optimizations might not happen.
It appears we missed this point because the previous experiments were
done on type numeric: the parser undesirably generates a call on the
numeric() length-coercion function, but then numeric_support()
optimizes that down to a RelabelType, so that everything seems fine.
It misbehaves for types that have a non-optimized length coercion
function, such as bpchar.
Per report from John Naylor. Back-patch to all supported branches,
as the previous patch eventually was. Unfortunately, that no longer
includes 9.6 ... we really shouldn't put this type of change into a
nearly-EOL branch.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFBsxsEfbFHEkouc+FSj+3K1sHipLPbEC67L0SAe-9-da8QtYg@mail.gmail.com
Replica identities that depend directly on an index rely on a set of
properties, one of them being that all the columns defined in this index
have to be marked as NOT NULL. There was a hole in the logic with ALTER
TABLE DROP NOT NULL, where it was possible to remove the NOT NULL
property of a column part of an index used as replica identity, so block
it to avoid problems with logical decoding down the road.
The same check was already done columns part of a primary key, so the
fix is straight-forward.
Author: Haiying Tang, Hou Zhijie
Reviewed-by: Dilip Kumar, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/OS0PR01MB6113338C102BEE8B2FFC5BD9FB619@OS0PR01MB6113.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Backpatch-through: 10
This fixes a loss of precision that occurs when the first input is
very close to 1, so that its logarithm is very small.
Formerly, during the initial low-precision calculation to estimate the
result weight, the logarithm was computed to a local rscale that was
capped to NUMERIC_MAX_DISPLAY_SCALE (1000). However, the base may be
as close as 1e-16383 to 1, hence its logarithm may be as small as
1e-16383, and so the local rscale needs to be allowed to exceed 16383,
otherwise all precision is lost, leading to a poor choice of rscale
for the full-precision calculation.
Fix this by removing the cap on the local rscale during the initial
low-precision calculation, as we already do in the full-precision
calculation. This doesn't change the fact that the initial calculation
is a low-precision approximation, computing the logarithm to around 8
significant digits, which is very fast, especially when the base is
very close to 1.
Patch by me, reviewed by Alvaro Herrera.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCV-Ceu%2BHpRMf416yUe4KKFv%3DtdgXQAe5-7S9tD%3D5E-T1g%40mail.gmail.com
Casting a value that's already of a type with a specific typmod
to an unspecified typmod doesn't do anything so far as run-time
behavior is concerned. However, it really ought to change the
exposed type of the expression to match. Up to now,
coerce_type_typmod hasn't bothered with that, which creates gotchas
in contexts such as recursive unions. If for example one side of
the union is numeric(18,3), but it needs to be plain numeric to
match the other side, there's no direct way to express that.
This is easy enough to fix, by inserting a RelabelType to update the
exposed type of the expression. However, it's a bit nervous-making
to change this behavior, because it's stood for a really long time.
But no complaints have emerged about 14beta3, so go ahead and
back-patch.
Back-patch of 5c056b0c2 into previous supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CABNQVagu3bZGqiTjb31a8D5Od3fUMs7Oh3gmZMQZVHZ=uWWWfQ@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1488389.1631984807@sss.pgh.pa.us
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
Updates/Deletes on a relation were allowed even without replica identity
after we define the publication for all tables. This would later lead to
an error on subscribers. The reason was that for such publications we were
not invalidating the relcache and the publication information for
relations was not getting rebuilt. Similarly, we were not invalidating the
relcache after dropping of such publications which will prohibit
Updates/Deletes without replica identity even without any publication.
Author: Vignesh C and Hou Zhijie
Reviewed-by: Hou Zhijie, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 10, where it was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALDaNm0pF6zeWqCA8TCe2sDuwFAy8fCqba=nHampCKag-qLixg@mail.gmail.com
Commit 5be8ce82e8 added a new role to the stats_ext regression suite,
but the role name did not start with regress_ causing failures when
running with ENFORCE_REGRESSION_TEST_NAME_RESTRICTIONS. Fixed by
renaming the role to start with the expected regress_ prefix.
Backpatch-through: 10, same as the new regression test
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1F238937-7CC2-4703-A1B1-6DC225B8978A%40enterprisedb.com
When an ownership check on extended statistics object failed, the code
was calling aclcheck_error_type to report the failure, which is clearly
wrong, resulting in cache lookup errors. Fix by calling aclcheck_error.
This issue exists since the introduction of extended statistics, so
backpatch all the way back to PostgreSQL 10. It went unnoticed because
there were no tests triggering the error, so add one.
Reported-by: Mark Dilger
Backpatch-through: 10, where extended stats were introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1F238937-7CC2-4703-A1B1-6DC225B8978A%40enterprisedb.com
Regexps like "(.){0}...\1" drew an "invalid backreference number".
That's not unreasonable on its face, since the capture group will
never be matched if it's iterated zero times. However, other engines
such as Perl's don't complain about this, nor do we throw an error for
related cases such as "(.)|\1", even though that backref can never
succeed either. Also, if the zero-iterations case happens at runtime
rather than compile time --- say, "(x)*...\1" when there's no "x" to
be found --- that's not an error, we just deem the backref to not
match. Making this even less defensible, no error was thrown for
nested cases such as "((.)){0}...\2"; and to add insult to injury,
those cases could result in assertion failures instead. (It seems
that nothing especially bad happened in non-assert builds, though.)
Let's just fix it so that no error is thrown and instead the backref
is deemed to never match, so that compile-time detection of no
iterations behaves the same as run-time detection.
Per report from Mark Dilger. This appears to be an aboriginal error
in Spencer's library, so back-patch to all supported versions.
Pre-v14, it turns out to also be necessary to back-patch one aspect of
commits cb76fbd7e/00116dee5, namely to create capture-node subREs with
the begin/end states of their subexpressions, not the current lp/rp
of the outer parseqatom invocation. Otherwise delsub complains that
we're trying to disconnect a state from itself. This is a bit scary
but code examination shows that it's safe: in the pre-v14 code, if we
want to wrap iteration around the subexpression, the first thing we do
is overwrite the atom's begin/end fields with new states. So the
bogus values didn't survive long enough to be used for anything, except
if no iteration is required, in which case it doesn't matter.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/A099E4A8-4377-4C64-A98C-3DEDDC075502@enterprisedb.com
The recursion in cdissect() was careless about clearing match data
for capturing parentheses after rejecting a partial match. This
could allow a later back-reference to succeed when by rights it
should fail for lack of a defined referent.
To fix, think a little more rigorously about what the contract
between different levels of cdissect's recursion needs to be.
With the right spec, we can fix this using fewer rather than more
resets of the match data; the key decision being that a failed
sub-match is now explicitly responsible for clearing any matches
it may have set.
There are enough other cross-checks and optimizations in the code
that it's not especially easy to exhibit this problem; usually, the
match will fail as-expected. Plus, regexps that are even potentially
vulnerable are most likely user errors, since there's just not much
point in writing a back-ref that doesn't always have a referent.
These facts perhaps explain why the issue hasn't been detected,
even though it's almost certainly a couple of decades old.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/151435.1629733387@sss.pgh.pa.us
transformLockingClause neglected to exclude the pseudo-RTEs for
OLD/NEW when processing a rule's query. This led to odd errors
or even crashes later on. This bug is very ancient, but it's
not terribly surprising that nobody noticed, since the use-case
for SELECT FOR UPDATE in a non-view rule is somewhere between
thin and non-existent. Still, crashing is not OK.
Per bug #17151 from Zhiyong Wu. Thanks to Masahiko Sawada
for analysis of the problem.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17151-c03a3e6e4ec9aadb@postgresql.org
Recursion into the FILTER clause was mis-implemented, such that a
relevant Var or Aggref at the very top of the FILTER clause would
be ignored. (Of course, that'd have to be a plain boolean Var or
boolean-returning aggregate.) The consequence would be
mis-identification of the correct semantic level of the aggregate,
which could lead to not-per-spec query behavior. If the FILTER
expression is an aggregate, this could also lead to failure to issue
an expected "aggregate function calls cannot be nested" error, which
would likely result in a core dump later on, since the planner and
executor aren't expecting such cases to appear.
The root cause is that commit b560ec1b0 blindly copied some code
that assumed it's recursing into a List, and thus didn't examine the
top-level node. To forestall questions about why this call doesn't
look like the others, as well as possible future copy-and-paste
mistakes, let's change all three check_agg_arguments_walker calls in
check_agg_arguments, even though only the one for the filter clause
is really broken.
Per bug #17152 from Zhiyong Wu. This has been wrong since we
implemented FILTER, so back-patch to all supported versions.
(Testing suggests that pre-v11 branches manage to avoid crashing
in the bad-Aggref case, thanks to "redundant" checks in ExecInitAgg.
But I'm not sure how thorough that protection is, and anyway the
wrong-behavior issue remains, so fix 9.6 and 10 too.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17152-c7f906cc1a88e61b@postgresql.org
Rather than trying to pick table aliases that won't conflict with
any possible user-defined matview column name, adjust the queries'
syntax so that the aliases are only used in places where they can't be
mistaken for column names. Mostly this consists of writing "alias.*"
not just "alias", which adds clarity for humans as well as machines.
We do have the issue that "SELECT alias.*" acts differently from
"SELECT alias", but we can use the same hack ruleutils.c uses for
whole-row variables in SELECT lists: write "alias.*::compositetype".
We might as well revert to the original aliases after doing this;
they're a bit easier to read.
Like 75d66d10e, back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2488325.1628261320@sss.pgh.pa.us
Formerly, the numeric code tested whether an integer value of a larger
type would fit in a smaller type by casting it to the smaller type and
then testing if the reverse conversion produced the original value.
That's perfectly fine, except that it caused a test failure on
buildfarm animal castoroides, most likely due to a compiler bug.
Instead, do these tests by comparing against PG_INT16/32_MIN/MAX. That
matches existing code in other places, such as int84(), which is more
widely tested, and so is less likely to go wrong.
While at it, add regression tests covering the numeric-to-int8/4/2
conversions, and adjust the recently added tests to the style of
434ddfb79a (on the v11 branch) to make failures easier to diagnose.
Per buildfarm via Tom Lane, reviewed by Tom Lane.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2394813.1628179479%40sss.pgh.pa.us
This fixes a long-standing bug when using to_char() to format a
numeric value in scientific notation -- if the value's exponent is
less than -NUMERIC_MAX_DISPLAY_SCALE-1 (-1001), it produced a
division-by-zero error.
The reason for this error was that get_str_from_var_sci() divides its
input by 10^exp, which it produced using power_var_int(). However, the
underflow test in power_var_int() causes it to return zero if the
result scale is too small. That's not a problem for power_var_int()'s
only other caller, power_var(), since that limits the rscale to 1000,
but in get_str_from_var_sci() the exponent can be much smaller,
requiring a much larger rscale. Fix by introducing a new function to
compute 10^exp directly, with no rscale limit. This also allows 10^exp
to be computed more efficiently, without any numeric multiplication,
division or rounding.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWhojfH4whaqgUKBe8D5jNHB8ytzemL-PnRx+KCTyMXmg@mail.gmail.com
This fixes a couple of related problems that arise when raising
numbers to very large powers.
Firstly, when raising a negative number to a very large integer power,
the result should be well-defined, but the previous code would only
cope if the exponent was small enough to go through power_var_int().
Otherwise it would throw an internal error, attempting to take the
logarithm of a negative number. Fix this by adding suitable handling
to the general case in power_var() to cope with negative bases,
checking for integer powers there.
Next, when raising a (positive or negative) number whose absolute
value is slightly less than 1 to a very large power, the result should
approach zero as the power is increased. However, in some cases, for
sufficiently large powers, this would lose all precision and return 1
instead of 0. This was due to the way that the local_rscale was being
calculated for the final full-precision calculation:
local_rscale = rscale + (int) val - ln_dweight + 8
The first two terms on the right hand side are meant to give the
number of significant digits required in the result ("val" being the
estimated result weight). However, this failed to account for the fact
that rscale is clipped to a maximum of NUMERIC_MAX_DISPLAY_SCALE
(1000), and the result weight might be less then -1000, causing their
sum to be negative, leading to a loss of precision. Fix this by
forcing the number of significant digits calculated to be nonnegative.
It's OK for it to be zero (when the result weight is less than -1000),
since the local_rscale value then includes a few extra digits to
ensure an accurate result.
Finally, add additional underflow checks to exp_var() and power_var(),
so that they consistently return zero for cases like this where the
result is indistinguishable from zero. Some paths through this code
already returned zero in such cases, but others were throwing overflow
errors.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Yugo Nagata.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCW6Dvq7+3wN3tt5jLj-FyOcUgT5xNoOqce5=6Su0bCR0w@mail.gmail.com
We have an implementation restriction that PREPARE TRANSACTION can't
handle cases where both session-lifespan and transaction-lifespan locks
are held on the same lockable object. (That's because we'd otherwise
need to acquire a new PROCLOCK entry during post-prepare cleanup, which
is an operation that might fail. The situation can only arise with odd
usages of advisory locks, so removing the restriction is probably not
worth the amount of effort it would take.) AtPrepare_Locks attempted
to enforce this, but its logic was many bricks shy of a load, because
it only detected cases where the session and transaction locks had the
same lockmode. Locks of different modes on the same object would lead
to the rather unhelpful message "PANIC: we seem to have dropped a bit
somewhere".
To fix, build a transient hashtable with one entry per locktag,
not one per locktag + mode, and use that to detect conflicts.
Per bug #17122 from Alexander Pyhalov. This bug is ancient,
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17122-04f3c32098a62233@postgresql.org
We don't allow to create replication slot_name as an empty string ('') via
SQL API pg_create_logical_replication_slot() but it is allowed to be set
via Alter Subscription command. This will lead to apply worker repeatedly
keep trying to stream data via slot_name '' and the user is not allowed to
create the slot with that name.
Author: Japin Li
Reviewed-By: Ranier Vilela, Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 10, where it was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/MEYP282MB1669CBD98E721C77CA696499B61A9@MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
This fixes an overflow error when using the numeric * operator if the
result has more than 16383 digits after the decimal point by rounding
the result. Overflow errors should only occur if the result has too
many digits *before* the decimal point.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCUmeFWCrq2dNzZpRj5+6LfN85jYiDoqm+ucSXhb9U2TbA@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
Due to how pg_size_pretty(bigint) was implemented, it's possible that when
given a negative number of bytes that the returning value would not match
the equivalent positive return value when given the equivalent positive
number of bytes. This was due to two separate issues.
1. The function used bit shifting to convert the number of bytes into
larger units. The rounding performed by bit shifting is not the same as
dividing. For example -3 >> 1 = -2, but -3 / 2 = -1. These two
operations are only equivalent with positive numbers.
2. The half_rounded() macro rounded towards positive infinity. This meant
that negative numbers rounded towards zero and positive numbers rounded
away from zero.
Here we fix#1 by dividing the values instead of bit shifting. We fix#2
by adjusting the half_rounded macro always to round away from zero.
Additionally, adjust the pg_size_pretty(numeric) function to be more
explicit that it's using division rather than bit shifting. A casual
observer might have believed bit shifting was used due to a static
function being named numeric_shift_right. However, that function was
calculating the divisor from the number of bits and performed division.
Here we make that more clear. This change is just cosmetic and does not
affect the return value of the numeric version of the function.
Here we also add a set of regression tests both versions of
pg_size_pretty() which test the values directly before and after the
function switches to the next unit.
This bug was introduced in 8a1fab36a. Prior to that negative values were
always displayed in bytes.
Author: Dean Rasheed, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCXnNW4HsmZnxhfezR5FuiGgp+mkY4AzcL5eRGO4fuadWg@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.6, where the bug was introduced.
83158f7 has improved index_set_state_flags() so as it is possible to use
transactional updates when updating pg_index state flags, but there was
not really a test case which stressed directly the possibility it fixed.
This commit adds such a test, using a predicate that looks valid in
appearance but calls a stable function.
Author: Andrey Lepikhov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9b905019-5297-7372-0ad2-e1a4bb66a719@postgrespro.ru
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Ordinarily, a pg_policy.polroles array wouldn't list the same role
more than once; but CREATE POLICY does not prevent that. If we
perform DROP OWNED BY on a role that is listed more than once,
RemoveRoleFromObjectPolicy either suffered an assertion failure
or encountered a tuple-updated-by-self error. Rewrite it to cope
correctly with duplicate entries, and add a CommandCounterIncrement
call to prevent the other problem.
Per discussion, there's other cleanup that ought to happen here,
but this seems like the minimum essential fix.
Per bug #17062 from Alexander Lakhin. It's been broken all along,
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17062-11f471ae3199ca23@postgresql.org
This case should be disallowed, just as FOR UPDATE with a plain
GROUP BY is disallowed; FOR UPDATE only makes sense when each row
of the query result can be identified with a single table row.
However, we missed teaching CheckSelectLocking() to check
groupingSets as well as groupClause, so that it would allow
degenerate grouping sets. That resulted in a bad plan and
a null-pointer dereference in the executor.
Looking around for other instances of the same bug, the only one
I found was in examine_simple_variable(). That'd just lead to
silly estimates, but it should be fixed too.
Per private report from Yaoguang Chen.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
It's unusual to have any resjunk columns in an ON CONFLICT ... UPDATE
list, but it can happen when MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK SubPlans are present.
If it happens, the ON CONFLICT UPDATE code path would end up storing
tuples that include the values of the extra resjunk columns. That's
fairly harmless in the short run, but if new columns are added to
the table then the values would become accessible, possibly leading
to malfunctions if they don't match the datatypes of the new columns.
This had escaped notice through a confluence of missing sanity checks,
including
* There's no cross-check that a tuple presented to heap_insert or
heap_update matches the table rowtype. While it's difficult to
check that fully at reasonable cost, we can easily add assertions
that there aren't too many columns.
* The output-column-assignment cases in execExprInterp.c lacked
any sanity checks on the output column numbers, which seems like
an oversight considering there are plenty of assertion checks on
input column numbers. Add assertions there too.
* We failed to apply nodeModifyTable's ExecCheckPlanOutput() to
the ON CONFLICT UPDATE tlist. That wouldn't have caught this
specific error, since that function is chartered to ignore resjunk
columns; but it sure seems like a bad omission now that we've seen
this bug.
In HEAD, the right way to fix this is to make the processing of
ON CONFLICT UPDATE tlists work the same as regular UPDATE tlists
now do, that is don't add "SET x = x" entries, and use
ExecBuildUpdateProjection to evaluate the tlist and combine it with
old values of the not-set columns. This adds a little complication
to ExecBuildUpdateProjection, but allows removal of a comparable
amount of now-dead code from the planner.
In the back branches, the most expedient solution seems to be to
(a) use an output slot for the ON CONFLICT UPDATE projection that
actually matches the target table, and then (b) invent a variant of
ExecBuildProjectionInfo that can be told to not store values resulting
from resjunk columns, so it doesn't try to store into nonexistent
columns of the output slot. (We can't simply ignore the resjunk columns
altogether; they have to be evaluated for MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK to work.)
This works back to v10. In 9.6, projections work much differently and
we can't cheaply give them such an option. The 9.6 version of this
patch works by inserting a JunkFilter when it's necessary to get rid
of resjunk columns.
In addition, v11 and up have the reverse problem when trying to
perform ON CONFLICT UPDATE on a partitioned table. Through a
further oversight, adjust_partition_tlist() discarded resjunk columns
when re-ordering the ON CONFLICT UPDATE tlist to match a partition.
This accidentally prevented the storing-bogus-tuples problem, but
at the cost that MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK cases didn't work, typically
crashing if more than one row has to be updated. Fix by preserving
resjunk columns in that routine. (I failed to resist the temptation
to add more assertions there too, and to do some minor code
beautification.)
Per report from Andres Freund. Back-patch to all supported branches.
Security: CVE-2021-32028
