Horton

Re: SQL:2011 application time

Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>

View thread
From: Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-02-05T18:31:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Rename gist stratnum support function

  2. Remove support for temporal RESTRICT foreign keys

  3. Cache NO ACTION foreign keys separately from RESTRICT foreign keys

  4. Fix NO ACTION temporal foreign keys when the referenced endpoints change

  5. Improve whitespace in without_overlaps test

  6. Tests for logical replication with temporal keys

  7. Support for GiST in get_equal_strategy_number()

  8. Make the conditions in IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull() more explicit

  9. Replace get_equal_strategy_number_for_am() by get_equal_strategy_number()

  10. Improve internal logical replication error for missing equality strategy

  11. Simplify IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull()

  12. Fix ALTER TABLE / REPLICA IDENTITY for temporal tables

  13. doc: Update pg_constraint.conexclop docs for WITHOUT OVERLAPS

  14. doc: Add PERIOD to ALTER TABLE reference docs

  15. doc: Add WITHOUT OVERLAPS to ALTER TABLE reference docs

  16. Add temporal FOREIGN KEY contraints

  17. Add temporal PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE constraints

  18. Add stratnum GiST support function

  19. Avoid crashing when a JIT-inlined backend function throws an error.

  20. Revert temporal primary keys and foreign keys

  21. Fix ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE for temporal indexes

  22. Add test for REPLICA IDENTITY with a temporal key

  23. Use half-open interval notation in without_overlaps tests

  24. Use daterange and YMD in without_overlaps tests instead of tsrange.

  25. Rename pg_constraint.conwithoutoverlaps to conperiod

  26. Fix comment on gist_stratnum_btree

  27. Add missing TAP test name

  28. Improve error handling of HMAC computations

  29. Rename functions to avoid future conflicts

On 2/5/25 05:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 29.01.25 07:34, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
>> Is it possible to commit an RI_PLAN_NO_ACTION addition and see if that makes the buildfarm 
>> failures go away? Here is a proposed patch for that (v48.1). I would understand if this is too 
>> questionable a practice---but it would be nice to get sufficient test exposure to see if it makes 
>> a difference. Since I still haven't reproduced this locally (despite running continuously for 
>> almost a week), it's not an experiment I can do myself. If it *does* make the failures go away, 
>> then it suggests there is still some latent problem somewhere.
> 
> I'm tempted to give this a try.  But the cfbot is currently in a bit of a mess, so I'll wait until 
> that is clean again so that we can have a usable baseline to work against.

Okay, thanks! I've been spending some more time on this, but I haven't made much progress.

It's surely not as simple as just oid wrapround. Here is a bpftrace script to show when we change 
TransamVariables->nextOid:

BEGIN {
   @setnext = 0
}

u:/home/paul/local/bin/postgres:GetNewObjectId {
   @newoids[tid] += 1
}

u:/home/paul/local/bin/postgres:SetNextObjectId {
   @setnext += 1
}

When I run this during `make installcheck` I get only 29608 total calls to GetNewObjectId, and none 
for SetNextObjectId.

I've also been looking at the dynahash code a bit. With gdb I can give two constraint oids a hash 
collision, but of course that isn't sufficient, since we memcmp the whole key as well.

Last night I started looking at ri_constraint_cache, which is maybe a little more interesting due to 
the syscache invalidation code. A parallel test could cause an invalidation between lines of the 
without_overlaps test. Getting the wrong riinfo could make us treat a RESTRICT constraint as NO 
ACTION. But I don't see any way for that to happen yet.

I have too much confidence in the Postgres codebase to really expect to find bugs in any of these 
places. And yet I don't see how 1772d554b0 could make a RESTRICT test fail, since all its changes 
are wrapped in `if (is_no_action)`---except if the RESTRICT constraint is somehow executing the NO 
ACTION query by mistake.

Anyway I'll keep at it!

Yours,

-- 
Paul              ~{:-)
pj@illuminatedcomputing.com