Skip to content

Sequences are not distributed #1

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
knizhnik opened this issue Jun 1, 2016 · 0 comments
Closed

Sequences are not distributed #1

knizhnik opened this issue Jun 1, 2016 · 0 comments
Labels

Comments

@knizhnik
Copy link
Contributor

knizhnik commented Jun 1, 2016

No description provided.

@kelvich kelvich added the bug label Jun 1, 2016
@kelvich kelvich closed this as completed Aug 10, 2016
kelvich added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2016
kelvich added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 21, 2016
kelvich added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 17, 2017
kelvich added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2017
kelvich added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2017
kelvich pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 2, 2018
refresh_by_match_merge() has some issues in the way it builds a SQL
query to construct the "diff" table:

1. It doesn't require the selected unique index(es) to be indimmediate.
2. It doesn't pay attention to the particular equality semantics enforced
by a given index, but just assumes that they must be those of the column
datatype's default btree opclass.
3. It doesn't check that the indexes are btrees.
4. It's insufficiently careful to ensure that the parser will pick the
intended operator when parsing the query.  (This would have been a
security bug before CVE-2018-1058.)
5. It's not careful about indexes on system columns.

The way to fix #4 is to make use of the existing code in ri_triggers.c
for generating an arbitrary binary operator clause.  I chose to move
that to ruleutils.c, since that seems a more reasonable place to be
exporting such functionality from than ri_triggers.c.

While #1, #3, and #5 are just latent given existing feature restrictions,
and #2 doesn't arise in the core system for lack of alternate opclasses
with different equality behaviors, #4 seems like an issue worth
back-patching.  That's the bulk of the change anyway, so just back-patch
the whole thing to 9.4 where this code was introduced.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
arssher pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 25, 2019
…tions.

Commit 3d956d9 added support for update row movement in postgres_fdw.
This patch fixes the following issues introduced by that commit:

* When a remote partition chosen to insert routed rows into was also an
  UPDATE subplan target rel that would be updated later, the UPDATE that
  used a direct modification plan modified those routed rows incorrectly
  because those routed rows were visible to the later UPDATE command.
  The right fix for this would be to have some way in postgres_fdw in
  which the later UPDATE command ignores those routed rows, but it seems
  hard to do so with the current infrastructure.  For now throw an error
  in that case.

* When a remote partition chosen to insert routed rows into was also an
  UPDATE subplan target rel, fmstate created for the UPDATE that used a
  non-direct modification plan was mistakenly overridden by another
  fmstate created for inserting those routed rows into the partition.
  This caused 1) server crash when the partition would be updated later,
  and 2) resource leak when the partition had been already updated.  To
  avoid that, adjust the treatment of the fmstate for the inserting.  As
  for #1, since we would also have the incorrectness issue as mentioned
  above, error out in that case as well.

Update the docs to mention that postgres_fdw currently does not handle
the case where a remote partition chosen to insert a routed row into is
also an UPDATE subplan target rel that will be updated later.

Author: Amit Langote and Etsuro Fujita
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote
Backpatch-through: 11 where row movement in postgres_fdw was added
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
Charles-Schleich pushed a commit to Charles-Schleich/postgres_cluster that referenced this issue Jul 15, 2021
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 postgrespro#1 by dividing the values instead of bit shifting.  We fix postgrespro#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 8a1fab3. 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.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants