[Old] Errors handling during COPY FROM #1
Closed
Conversation
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
ololobus
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 22, 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/13836.1521413227@sss.pgh.pa.us
ololobus
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 22, 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/13836.1521413227@sss.pgh.pa.us
5fcc467 to
5c4df12
Compare
d2d0925 to
aebce07
Compare
0102db1 to
7cce49f
Compare
7c01f90 to
16485ab
Compare
ololobus
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 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/21e7eaa4-0d4d-20c2-a1f7-c7e96f4ce440@lab.ntt.co.jp
ololobus
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2020
…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/21e7eaa4-0d4d-20c2-a1f7-c7e96f4ce440@lab.ntt.co.jp
ololobus
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 27, 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 #1 by dividing the values instead of bit shifting. We fix #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
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 #3