Skip to content

P
Postgres FD Implementation
Switch branch/tag
  1. 06 Mar, 2019 4 commits
  3. 05 Mar, 2019 4 commits
  5. 04 Mar, 2019 9 commits
  7. 03 Mar, 2019 4 commits
    • Andrew Dunstan's avatar
      Don't do pg_ctl logrotate test on Windows · d611175e
      Andrew Dunstan authored 
      The test crashes and burns quite badly, for some reason, but even if it
didn't it wouldn't work, since Windows doesn't let you rename a file
held by a running process.
      d611175e
    • Tom Lane's avatar
      Improve performance of index-only scans with many index columns. · 80b9e9c4
      Tom Lane authored 
      StoreIndexTuple was a loop over index_getattr, which is O(N^2)
if the index columns are variable-width, and the performance
impact is already quite visible at ten columns.  The obvious
move is to replace that with a call to index_deform_tuple ...
but that's *also* a loop over index_getattr.  Improve it to
be essentially a clone of heap_deform_tuple.

(There are a few other places that loop over all index columns
with index_getattr, and perhaps should be changed likewise,
but most of them don't seem performance-critical.  Anyway, the
rest would mostly only be interested in the index key columns,
which there aren't likely to be so many of.  Wide index tuples
are a new thing with INCLUDE.)

Konstantin Knizhnik

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/e06b2d27-04fc-5c0e-bb8c-ecd72aa24959@postgrespro.ru
      80b9e9c4
    • Andrew Dunstan's avatar
      Avoid accidental wildcard expansion in msys shell · 78b408a2
      Andrew Dunstan authored 
      Commit f092de05 added a test for pg_dumpall --exclude-database including
the wildcard pattern '*dump*' which matches some files in the source
directory. The test library on msys uses the shell which expands this
and thus the program gets incorrect arguments. This doesn't happen if
the pattern doesn't match any files, so here the pattern is set to
'*dump_test*' which is such a pattern.

Per buildfarm animal jacana.
      78b408a2
    • Dean Rasheed's avatar
      Further fixing for multi-row VALUES lists for updatable views. · ed4653db
      Dean Rasheed authored 
      Previously, rewriteTargetListIU() generated a list of attribute
numbers from the targetlist, which were passed to rewriteValuesRTE(),
which expected them to contain the same number of entries as there are
columns in the VALUES RTE, and to be in the same order. That was fine
when the target relation was a table, but for an updatable view it
could be broken in at least three different ways ---
rewriteTargetListIU() could insert additional targetlist entries for
view columns with defaults, the view columns could be in a different
order from the columns of the underlying base relation, and targetlist
entries could be merged together when assigning to elements of an
array or composite type. As a result, when recursing to the base
relation, the list of attribute numbers generated from the rewritten
targetlist could no longer be relied upon to match the columns of the
VALUES RTE. We got away with that prior to 41531e42 because it used
to always be the case that rewriteValuesRTE() did nothing for the
underlying base relation, since all DEFAULTS had already been replaced
when it was initially invoked for the view, but that was incorrect
because it failed to apply defaults from the base relation.

Fix this by examining the targetlist entries more carefully and
picking out just those that are simple Vars referencing the VALUES
RTE. That's sufficient for the purposes of rewriteValuesRTE(), which
is only responsible for dealing with DEFAULT items in the VALUES
RTE. Any DEFAULT item in the VALUES RTE that doesn't have a matching
simple-Var-assignment in the targetlist is an error which we complain
about, but in theory that ought to be impossible.

Additionally, move this code into rewriteValuesRTE() to give a clearer
separation of concerns between the 2 functions. There is no need for
rewriteTargetListIU() to know about the details of the VALUES RTE.

While at it, fix the comment for rewriteValuesRTE() which claimed that
it doesn't support array element and field assignments --- that hasn't
been true since a3c7a993 (9.6 and later).

Back-patch to all supported versions, with minor differences for the
pre-9.6 branches, which don't support array element and field
assignments to the same column in multi-row VALUES lists.

Reviewed by Amit Langote.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15623-5d67a46788ec8b7f@postgresql.org
      ed4653db
  9. 02 Mar, 2019 2 commits
  11. 01 Mar, 2019 9 commits
  13. 28 Feb, 2019 8 commits