The example for dropping an option was incorrectly quoting the
option key thus making it a value turning the command into an
unqualified ADD operation. The result of dropping became adding
a new key/value pair instead:
d=# alter foreign data wrapper f options (drop 'b');
ALTER FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER
d=# select fdwoptions from pg_foreign_data_wrapper where fdwname='f';
fdwoptions
------------
{drop=b}
(1 row)
This has been incorrect for a long time so backpatch to all
supported branches.
Author: Tim <tim.needham2@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/170292280173.1876505.5204623074024041738@wrigleys.postgresql.org
We didn't explain this clearly until somewhere deep in the
"Extending SQL" chapter, but really it ought to be mentioned
in the introductory material too.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4097442.1694967650@sss.pgh.pa.us
The wording changed here comes from 991bfe11d2, when the only way to
trigger a promotion was with a trigger file. There are more options to
achieve this operation these days, like the SQL function pg_promote() or
the command `pg_ctl promote`, so it is confusing to assume that only a
trigger file is able to do the work.
Note also that promote_trigger_file has been removed as of cd4329d939
in 16~.
Author: Shinya Kato
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/201b08ea29aa61f96162080e75be503c@oss.nttdata.com
Backpatch-through: 12
On the MERGE page, the description of the privileges required could be
taken to imply that the SELECT privilege is required on all columns of
the data source, whereas actually it is only required on the columns
referred to by conditions or expressions in the MERGE command. Re-word
it to make that a little clearer, and mention expressions as well as
conditions.
Also, add a glossary entry for MERGE, and nearby on the glossary page,
mention MERGE in the list of commands that cannot update a
materialized view.
Noted by Jian He. Patch by me, reviewed by Jian He.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CACJufxHuSoRXKwr0MtSFLXuT2nFVWcVfEWhxg7qdP9h%2Bs3a%2BUw%40mail.gmail.com
Clarify that default privileges are not inherited and reorder
paragraphs. This is a follow up to a recent ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES
doc patch.
Reported-by: Sanjay Minni
Diagnosed-by: AMpxBo=M35hcH1g4Vg=KRJ0-77FOJcvdrdiVF5KSOAdOG-LvKQ@mail.gmail.com
Co-authored-by: Laurenz Albe
Backpatch-through: 16
One of the examples on the SELECT page was missing a semicolon from
a listing which has the look and feel of being a psql session. This
adds the missing semicolon and also removes the newline between the
query and results to match the other examples nearby.
Backpatch to all supported branches to avoid backpatching issues on
this page.
Reported-by: tim.needham2@gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/169965004097.225187.12941375915673151540@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: v12
In f13eb16485 I made a mistake leading to only man1 being installed. I will
report a bug suggesting that meson warn about mistakes of this sort.
Reported-by: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZUU5pRQO6ZUeBsi6@msg.df7cb.de
Backpatch: 16-, where the meson build was introduced
As usual, the release notes for other branches will be made by cutting
these down, but put them up for community review first.
Also as usual for a .1 release, there are some entries here that
are not really relevant for v16 because they already appeared in 16.0.
Those'll be removed later.
This text left one with the impression that an ON SELECT rule could
be attached to a plain table, which has not been true since commit
264c06820 (meaning the text was already misleading when written,
evidently by me in 96bd67f61). However, it didn't get really bad
until b23cd185f removed the convert-a-table-to-a-view logic, which
had made it possible for scripts that thought they were attaching
ON SELECTs to tables to still work.
Rewrite into a form that makes it clear that an ON SELECT rule
is better regarded as an implementation detail of a view.
Pre-v16, point out that adding ON SELECT to a table actually
converts it to a view.
Per bug #18178 from Joshua Uyehara. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18178-05534d7064044d2d@postgresql.org
This part of the documentation refers to exceptions as handled by
PL/pgSQL, and using the internal error code is confusing.
Per thinko in 66bde49d96.
Reported-by: Euler Taveira, Bruce Momjian
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZUEUnLevXyW7DlCs@momjian.us
Backpatch-through: 11
As far as I can see, ecpg has no notion of a "default" open
connection. You can do "CONNECT TO DEFAULT" but that just specifies
letting libpq use all its default connection parameters --- the
resulting connection is not special subsequently. In particular,
SET CONNECTION = DEFAULT and DISCONNECT DEFAULT simply act on a
connection named DEFAULT, if you've made one; they do not have
special lookup rules. But the documentation of these commands
makes it look like they do.
Simplest fix, I think, is just to remove the paras suggesting that
DEFAULT is special here.
Also, SET CONNECTION *does* have one special lookup rule, which
is that it recognizes CURRENT as an alias for the currently selected
connection. SET CONNECTION = CURRENT is a no-op, so it's pretty
useless, but nonetheless it does something different from selecting
a connection by name; so we'd better document it.
Per report from Sylvain Frandaz. Back-patch to all supported
versions.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/169824721149.1769274.1553568436817652238@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Clearly spell out the limitations of aminsert()'s indexUnchanged hinting
mechanism in the index AM documentation.
Oversight in commit 9dc718bd, which added the "logically unchanged
index" hint (which is used to trigger bottom-up index deletion).
Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Reported-By: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzmU_BQ=-H9L+bxTSMQBqHMjp1DSwGypvL0gKs+dTOfkKg@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 14-, where indexUnchanged hinting was introduced.
This doco said that use of => as an operator "is deprecated".
It's been fully disallowed since 865f14a2d back in 9.5, but
evidently that commit missed updating this statement.
Do so now.
The old documentation encourages entering single-user mode for no
reason, which is a bad plan in most cases. Instead, discourage users
from doing that, and explain the limited cases in which it may be
desirable.
The old documentation claims that running VACUUM as anyone but the
superuser can't possibly work, which is not really true, because it
might be that some other user has enough permissions to VACUUM all
the tables that matter. Weaken the language just a bit.
The old documentation claims that you can't run any commands
when near XID exhaustion, which is false because you can still
run commands that don't require an XID, like a SELECT without a
locking clause.
The old documentation doesn't clearly explain that it's a good idea
to get rid of prepared transactons, long-running transactions, and
replication slots that are preventing (M)XID horizon advancement.
Spell out the steps to do that.
Also, discourage the use of VACUUM FULL and VACUUM FREEZE in
this type of scenario.
Back-patch to v14. Much of this is good advice on all supported
versions, but before 60f1f09ff4
the chances of VACUUM failing in multi-user mode were much higher.
Alexander Alekseev, John Naylor, Robert Haas, reviewed at various
times by Peter Geoghegan, Hannu Krosing, and Andres Freund.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYtsUDrzaHcmjFhLzTk1VEv29mO_u-MT+XWHrBJ_4nD8A@mail.gmail.com
While these two built-in functions do exactly the same thing,
CURRENT_USER seems preferable to use in documentation examples.
It's easier to look up if the reader is unsure what it is.
Also, this puts these examples in sync with an adjacent example
that already used CURRENT_USER.
Per question from Kirk Parker.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANwZ8rmN_Eb0h0hoMRS8Feftaik0z89PxVsKg+cP+PctuOq=Qg@mail.gmail.com
Tom Lane