| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Turns out the compression.sql test creates a view that needs
to be adjusted in the wake of 47bb9db75 --- except that without
--with-lz4, it fails to create the view at all, so I'd not
noticed this in testing.
Per buildfarm member crake.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The rule system needs "old" and/or "new" pseudo-RTEs in rule actions
that are ON INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. Historically it's put such entries
into the ON SELECT rules of views as well, but those are really quite
vestigial. The only thing we've used them for is to carry the
view's relid forward to AcquireExecutorLocks (so that we can
re-lock the view to verify it hasn't changed before re-using a plan)
and to carry its relid and permissions data forward to execution-time
permissions checks. What we can do instead of that is to retain
these fields of the RTE_RELATION RTE for the view even after we
convert it to an RTE_SUBQUERY RTE. This requires a tiny amount of
extra complication in the planner and AcquireExecutorLocks, but on
the other hand we can get rid of the logic that moves that data from
one place to another.
The principal immediate benefit of doing this, aside from a small
saving in the pg_rewrite data for views, is that these pseudo-RTEs
no longer trigger ruleutils.c's heuristic about qualifying variable
names when the rangetable's length is more than 1. That results
in quite a number of small simplifications in regression test outputs,
which are all to the good IMO.
Bump catversion because we need to dump a few more fields of
RTE_SUBQUERY RTEs. While those will always be zeroes anyway in
stored rules (because we'd never populate them until query rewrite)
they are useful for debugging, and it seems like we'd better make
sure to transmit such RTEs accurately in plans sent to parallel
workers. I don't think the executor actually examines these fields
after startup, but someday it might.
This is a second attempt at committing 1b4d280ea. The difference
from the first time is that now we can add some filtering rules to
AdjustUpgrade.pm to allow cross-version upgrade testing to pass
despite all the cosmetic changes in CREATE VIEW outputs.
Amit Langote (filtering rules by me)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqEf7gPN4Hn+LoZ4tP2q_Qt7n3vw7-6fJKOf92tSEnX6Gg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/891521.1673657296@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
test_extensions' test_ext_cine extension has the same upgrade hazard
as test_ext7: the regression test leaves it in an updated state
from which no downgrade path to default is provided. This causes
the update_extensions.sql script helpfully provided by pg_upgrade
to fail. So drop it in cross-version-upgrade testing.
Not entirely sure how come I didn't hit this in testing yesterday;
possibly I'd built the upgrade reference databases with
testmodules-install-check disabled.
Backpatch to v10 where this module was introduced.
|
|
|
To test pg_upgrade across major PG versions, we have to be able to
modify or drop any old objects with no-longer-supported properties,
and we have to be able to deal with cosmetic changes in pg_dump output.
Up to now, the buildfarm and pg_upgrade's own test infrastructure had
separate implementations of the former, and we had nothing but very
ad-hoc rules for the latter (including an arbitrary threshold on how
many lines of unchecked diff were okay!). This patch creates a Perl
module that can be shared by both those use-cases, and adds logic
that deals with pg_dump output diffs in a much more tightly defined
fashion.
This largely supersedes previous efforts in commits 0df9641d3,
9814ff550, and 62be9e4cd, which developed a SQL-script-based solution
for the task of dropping old objects. There was nothing fundamentally
wrong with that work in itself, but it had no basis for solving the
output-formatting problem. The most plausible way to deal with
formatting is to build a Perl module that can perform editing on the
dump files; and once we commit to that, it makes more sense for the
same module to also embed the knowledge of what has to be done for
dropping old objects.
Back-patch versions of the helper module as far as 9.2, to
support buildfarm animals that still test that far back.
It's also necessary to back-patch PostgreSQL/Version.pm,
because the new code depends on that. I fixed up pg_upgrade's
002_pg_upgrade.pl in v15, but did not look into back-patching
it further than that.
Tom Lane and Andrew Dunstan
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/891521.1673657296@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
