pgsql: Preserve pg_index.indisreplident across REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

2020-06-04 Thread Michael Paquier
Preserve pg_index.indisreplident across REINDEX CONCURRENTLY If the flag value is lost, logical decoding would work the same way as REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING, meaning that no old tuple values would be included in the changes anymore produced by logical decoding. Author: Michael Paquier Reviewed-by

pgsql: Preserve pg_index.indisreplident across REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

2020-06-04 Thread Michael Paquier
Preserve pg_index.indisreplident across REINDEX CONCURRENTLY If the flag value is lost, logical decoding would work the same way as REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING, meaning that no old tuple values would be included in the changes anymore produced by logical decoding. Author: Michael Paquier Reviewed-by

pgsql: Add missing #include.

2020-06-04 Thread Tom Lane
Add missing #include. Oversight in b2c64f571 (the later branches already have this). Per buildfarm. Branch -- REL_10_STABLE Details --- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/9a9ba4c4d84ec149596f21472cdf632ced8bcd8e Modified Files -- src/include/utils/date.h | 2 +- 1 file

pgsql: Reject "23:59:60.nnn" in datetime input.

2020-06-04 Thread Tom Lane
Reject "23:59:60.nnn" in datetime input. It's intentional that we don't allow values greater than 24 hours, while we do allow "24:00:00" as well as "23:59:60" as inputs. However, the range check was miscoded in such a way that it would accept "23:59:60.nnn" with a nonzero fraction. For time or ti

pgsql: Reject "23:59:60.nnn" in datetime input.

2020-06-04 Thread Tom Lane
Reject "23:59:60.nnn" in datetime input. It's intentional that we don't allow values greater than 24 hours, while we do allow "24:00:00" as well as "23:59:60" as inputs. However, the range check was miscoded in such a way that it would accept "23:59:60.nnn" with a nonzero fraction. For time or ti

pgsql: Reject "23:59:60.nnn" in datetime input.

2020-06-04 Thread Tom Lane
Reject "23:59:60.nnn" in datetime input. It's intentional that we don't allow values greater than 24 hours, while we do allow "24:00:00" as well as "23:59:60" as inputs. However, the range check was miscoded in such a way that it would accept "23:59:60.nnn" with a nonzero fraction. For time or ti

pgsql: Reject "23:59:60.nnn" in datetime input.

2020-06-04 Thread Tom Lane
Reject "23:59:60.nnn" in datetime input. It's intentional that we don't allow values greater than 24 hours, while we do allow "24:00:00" as well as "23:59:60" as inputs. However, the range check was miscoded in such a way that it would accept "23:59:60.nnn" with a nonzero fraction. For time or ti

pgsql: psql: Clean up terminology in \dAp command

2020-06-04 Thread Peter Eisentraut
psql: Clean up terminology in \dAp command The preferred terminology has been support "function", not procedure, for some time, so change that over. The command stays \dAp, since \dAf is already something else. Branch -- master Details --- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/f50670