| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
as determined by IWYU
Similar to commit dbbca2cf299, but for contrib, pl, and src/test/.
Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/0df1d5b1-8ca8-4f84-93be-121081bde049%40eisentraut.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reported-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZZKTDPxBBMt3C0J9@paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 12
|
|
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The prior commit declared them centrally.
Author: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20211101020311.av6hphdl6xbjbuif@alap3.anarazel.de
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The code for unloading a library has been commented-out for over 12
years, ever since commit 602a9ef5a7c60151e10293ae3c4bb3fbb0132d03, and we're
no closer to supporting it now than we were back then.
Nathan Bossart, reviewed by Michael Paquier and by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/Ynsc9bRL1caUSBSE@paquier.xyz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit 75d22069e tried to throw a warning for setting a custom GUC whose
prefix belongs to a previously-loaded extension, if there is no such GUC
defined by the extension. But that caused unstable behavior with
parallel workers, because workers don't necessarily load extensions and
GUCs in the same order their leader did. To make that work safely, we
have to completely disallow the case. We now actually remove any such
GUCs at the time of initial extension load, and then throw an error not
just a warning if you try to add one later. While this might create a
compatibility issue for a few people, the improvement in error-detection
capability seems worth it; it's hard to believe that there's any good
use-case for choosing such GUC names.
This also un-reverts 5609cc01c (Rename EmitWarningsOnPlaceholders() to
MarkGUCPrefixReserved()), since that function's old name is now even
more of a misnomer.
Florin Irion and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1902182.1640711215@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Revert commits 5609cc01c, 2ed8a8cc5, and 75d22069e until we have
a less broken idea of how this should work in parallel workers.
Per buildfarm.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1640909.1640638123@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This seems like a clearer name for what it does now.
Provide a compatibility macro so that extensions don't have to convert
to the new name right away.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/116024.1640111629@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Extensions that define any custom GUCs should call
EmitWarningsOnPlaceholders after doing so, to help catch misspellings.
Many of our contrib modules hadn't gotten the memo on that, though.
Also add such calls to src/test/modules extensions that have GUCs.
While these aren't really user-facing, they should illustrate good
practice not faulty practice.
Shinya Kato
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/524fa2c0a34f34b68fbfa90d0760d515@oss.nttdata.com
|
|
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 9.5
|
|
We have various cases where we allow DDL on tables to be performed with
less than full AccessExclusiveLock. This requires concurrent queries
to be able to cope with the DDL change mid-flight, but up to now we had
no repeatable way to test such cases. To improve that, invent a test
module that allows halting a backend after planning and then resuming
execution once we've done desired actions in another session. (The same
approach could be used to inject delays in other places, if there's a
suitable hook available.)
This commit includes a single test case, which is meant to exercise the
previously-untestable ExecCreatePartitionPruneState code repaired by
commit 7a980dfc6. We'd probably not bother with this if that were the
only foreseen benefit, but I expect additional test cases will use this
infrastructure in the future.
Test module by Andy Fan, partition-addition test case by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200802181131.GA27754@telsasoft.com
|