[pull] master from postgres:master#2265
Merged
pull[bot] merged 7 commits intoMu-L:masterfrom Apr 12, 2023
Merged
Conversation
Commit 4826759 and commit c3afe8c forgot to take care of this. Noriyoshi Shinoda Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/DM4PR84MB17345D8760165F14A199B81CEE9A9@DM4PR84MB1734.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
At least one slow buildfarm system (hoverfly) showed that the database creation was not replicated before we try to create logical replication slots on the standby, in that database. Reported-by: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> Author: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230411053657.GA1177147@rfd.leadboat.com
Make xl_heap_lock's infobits_set field of type uint8, not int8. Using int8 isn't appropriate given that the field just holds status bits. This fixes an oversight in commit 0ac5ad5. In passing rename the nearby TransactionId field to "xmax" to make things consistency with related records, such as xl_heap_lock_updated. Deliberately avoid a bump in XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC. No backpatch, either. Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkCd3kOS8b7Rfxw7Mh1_6jvX=Nzo-CWR1VBTiOtVZkWHA@mail.gmail.com
Make heap desc routines that output status bit as arrays of constants avoid outputting array literals that contain superfluous punctuation characters that complicate parsing the output. Also make sure that no heap desc routine repeats the same key name (at the same nesting level), for the same reason. Arguably, these were both oversights in commit 7d8219a. In passing, make the desc output code (which covers Heap's DELETE, UPDATE, HOT_UPDATE, LOCK, and LOCK_UPDATED record types) consistent in terms of the output order of each field. This order also matches WAL record struct order. Heap's DELETE desc output now shows the record's xmax field for the first time (just like UPDATE/HOT_UPDATE records). Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> Reviewed-By: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=pNYtxiJ2Jx5Lj=fKo1OEZ4GE0p_kct+ugAUTqBwU46g@mail.gmail.com
Clarify the goals of the recently added guidelines for rmgrdesc authors: to avoid gratuitous inconsistencies across resource managers, and to make it reasonably easy to write a reusable custom parser. Beyond that, the guidelines leave rmgrdesc authors with a significant amount of leeway. This even includes the leeway to invent custom conventions (in cases where it's warranted). Follow-up to commit 7d8219a. Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> Reviewed-By: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkbYuvwYKm-Y-72QEh6SPMQcAo9uONv+mR3bMGcu9E_Cg@mail.gmail.com
Calling fseek() or ftello() on a handle to a non-seeking device such as a pipe or a communications device is not supported. Unfortunately, MSVC's flavor of these routines, _fseeki64() and _ftelli64(), do not return an error when given a pipe as handle. Some of the logic of pg_dump and restore relies on these routines to check if a handle is seekable, causing failures when passing the contents of pg_dump to pg_restore through a pipe, for example. This commit introduces wrappers for fseeko() and ftello() on MSVC so as any callers are able to properly detect the cases of non-seekable handles. This relies mainly on GetFileType(), sharing a bit of code with the MSVC port for fstat(). The code in charge of getting a file type is refactored into a new file called win32common.c, shared by win32stat.c and the new win32fseek.c. It includes the MSVC ports for fseeko() and ftello(). Like 765f5df, this is backpatched down to 14, where the fstat() implementation for MSVC is able to understand about files larger than 4GB in size. Using a TAP test for that is proving to be tricky as IPC::Run handles the pipes by itself, still I have been able to check the fix manually. Reported-by: Daniel Watzinger Author: Juan José Santamaría Flecha, Michael Paquier Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAC+AXB26a4EmxM2suXxPpJaGrqAdxracd7hskLg-zxtPB50h7A@mail.gmail.com Backpatch-through: 14
This is a first batch of the fixes, for the most obvious fixes. A little bit more is under discussion. Author: Thom Brown, Justin Pryzby Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA-aLv7xCZ0nBJa-NWe0rxBB28TjFjS2JtjiZMoQ+0wsugG+hQ@mail.gmail.com
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See Commits and Changes for more details.
Created by
pull[bot]
Can you help keep this open source service alive? 💖 Please sponsor : )