ORDER BY expressions were being treated the same as regular aggregate
arguments for purposes of collation determination, but really they should
not affect the aggregate's collation at all; only collations of the
aggregate's regular arguments should affect it.
In many cases this mistake would lead to incorrectly throwing a "collation
conflict" error; but in some cases the corrected code will silently assign
a different collation to the aggregate than before, for example
agg(foo ORDER BY bar COLLATE "x")
which will now use foo's collation rather than "x" for the aggregate.
Given this risk and the lack of field complaints about the issue, it
doesn't seem prudent to back-patch.
In passing, rearrange code in assign_collations_walker so that we don't
need multiple copies of the standard logic for computing collation of a
node with children. (Previously, CaseExpr duplicated the standard logic,
and we would have needed a third copy for Aggref without this change.)
Andrew Gierth and David Fetter
There's probably no real bug here at present, so not backpatching.
But it seems good to make these bits consistent with the rest of
libpq, so as to avoid future surprises.
Patch by me. Review by Tom Lane.
There was a high probability of two or more concurrent C.I.C. commands
deadlocking just before completion, because each would wait for the others
to release their reference snapshots. Fix by releasing the snapshot
before waiting for other snapshots to go away.
Per report from Paul Hinze. Back-patch to all active branches.
On non-Windows systems, sys/time.h was pulled in by portability/instr_time.h,
which pulled in time.h. We certainly should include time.h directly, since
we're using time(2), but the indirect include masked the problem on most
platforms.
Andres Freund
This was due to incomplete implementation of rowcount reporting
for RMV, which was due to initial waffling on whether it should
be provided. It seems unlikely to be a useful or universally
available number as more sophisticated techniques for maintaining
matviews are added, so remove the partial support rather than
completing it.
Per report of Jeevan Chalke, but with a different fix
When creating or manipulating a cached plan for a transaction control
command (particularly ROLLBACK), we must not perform any catalog accesses,
since we might be in an aborted transaction. However, plancache.c busily
saved or examined the search_path for every cached plan. If we were
unlucky enough to do this at a moment where the path's expansion into
schema OIDs wasn't already cached, we'd do some catalog accesses; and with
some more bad luck such as an ill-timed signal arrival, that could lead to
crashes or Assert failures, as exhibited in bug #8095 from Nachiket Vaidya.
Fortunately, there's no real need to consider the search path for such
commands, so we can just skip the relevant steps when the subject statement
is a TransactionStmt. This is somewhat related to bug #5269, though the
failure happens during initial cached-plan creation rather than
revalidation.
This bug has been there since the plan cache was invented, so back-patch
to all supported branches.
In most cases, these were just references to the SQL standard in
general. In a few cases, a contrast was made between SQL92 and later
standards -- those have been kept unchanged.
If an FDW fails to take special measures with a CurrentOfExpr, we will
end up trying to execute it as an ordinary qual, which was being treated
as a purely internal failure condition. Provide a more user-oriented
error message for such cases.
This saves some memory from each index relcache entry. At least on a 64-bit
machine, it saves just enough to shrink a typical relcache entry's memory
usage from 2k to 1k. That's nice if you have a lot of backends and a lot of
indexes.
The initial coding just descended the index if any of the target trigrams
were possibly present at the next level down. But actually we can apply
trigramsMatchGraph() so as to take advantage of AND requirements when there
are some. The input data might contain false positive matches, but that
can only result in a false positive result, not false negative, so it's
safe to do it this way.
Alexander Korotkov
