Noted by Lukas Fittl

Dilian Palauzov pointed out in bug #14201 that the docs failed to mention
the possibility of %R producing '(' due to an unmatched parenthesis.

He proposed just adding that in the same style as the other options were
listed; but it seemed to me that the sentence was already nearly
unintelligible, so I rewrote it a bit more extensively.

Report: <20160619121113.5789.68274@wrigleys.postgresql.org>

Guillaume Lelarge

This requires some core changes as well so that we can properly
WAL-log the truncation.  Specifically, it changes the format of the
XLOG_SMGR_TRUNCATE WAL record, so bump XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC.

Patch by me, reviewed but not fully endorsed by Andres Freund.

If you really want to vacuum every single page in the relation,
regardless of apparent visibility status or anything else, you can use
this option.  In previous releases, this behavior could be achieved
using VACUUM (FREEZE), but because we can now recognize all-frozen
pages as not needing to be frozen again, that no longer works.  There
should be no need for routine use of this option, but maybe bugs or
disaster recovery will necessitate its use.

Patch by me, reviewed by Andres Freund.

The main point of doing this is to allow the cutoff to be set very small,
even zero, to allow parallel-query behavior to be tested on relatively
small tables such as we typically use in the regression tests.  But it
might be of use to users too.  The number-of-workers scaling behavior in
create_plain_partial_paths() is pretty ad-hoc and subject to change, so
we won't expose anything about that, but the notion of not considering
parallel query at all for tables below size X seems reasonably stable.

Amit Kapila, per a suggestion from me

Discussion: <17170.1465830165@sss.pgh.pa.us>

The new pg_check_visible() and pg_check_frozen() functions can be used to
verify that the visibility map bits for a relation's data pages match the
actual state of the tuples on those pages.

Amit Kapila and Robert Haas, reviewed (in earlier versions) by Andres
Freund.  Additional testing help by Thomas Munro.

Format the example and test code more to Python style standards.
Improve whitespace.  Improve documentation formatting.

Also explain how generic plans are created.
Link to PREPARE docs from wire-protocol prepare docs.

Reported-by: Jonathan Rogers

Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/561E749D.4090301%40socialserve.com

Rename schema -> schema_name etc. to remain consistent with C API and
PL/pgSQL.

While beneficial, both for throughput and average/worst case latency, in
a significant number of workloads, there are other workloads in which
backend_flush_after can cause significant performance regressions in
comparison to < 9.6 releases. The regression is most likely when the hot
data set is bigger than shared buffers, but significantly smaller than
the operating system's page cache.

I personally think that the benefit of enabling backend flush control is
considerably bigger than the potential downsides, but a fair argument
can be made that not regressing is more important than improving
performance/latency. As the latter is the consensus, change the default
to 0.

The other settings introduced in 428b1d6b do not have the same
potential for regressions, so leave them enabled.

Benchmarks leading up to changing the default have been performed by
Mithun Cy, Ashutosh Sharma and Robert Haas.

Discussion: CAD__OuhPmc6XH=wYRm_+Q657yQE88DakN4=Ybh2oveFasHkoeA@mail.gmail.com

Document these as "nearest integer >= argument" and "nearest integer <=
argument", which will hopefully be less confusing than the old formulation.
New wording is from Matlab via Dean Rasheed.

I changed the pg_description entries as well as the SGML docs.  In the
back branches, this will only affect installations initdb'd in the future,
but it should be harmless otherwise.

Discussion: <CAEZATCW3yzJo-NMSiQs5jXNFbTsCEftZS-Og8=FvFdiU+kYuSA@mail.gmail.com>

This terminology provoked widespread complaints.  So, instead, rename
the GUC max_parallel_degree to max_parallel_workers_per_gather
(leaving room for a possible future GUC max_parallel_workers that acts
as a system-wide limit), and rename the parallel_degree reloption to
parallel_workers.  Rename structure members to match.

These changes create a dump/restore hazard for users of PostgreSQL
9.6beta1 who have set the reloption (or applied the GUC using ALTER
USER or ALTER DATABASE).

Fix grammar, improve examples, etc.

I did not attempt to document the current behavior concerning distance-zero
matches, because I think that's broken and needs to change, so I'm not
going to use up brain cells figuring out how to explain how it works now.
One way or the other, there's still more to write here.

Amit Langote

Commit 6820094d mixed up types of parent object (table) with type of
sub-object being commented on.  Noticed while fixing docs for
COMMENT ON ACCESS METHOD.

Backpatch to 9.5, like that commit.

COMMENT ON ACCESS METHOD was missing; add it, along psql tab-completion
support for it.

psql was also missing a way to list existing access methods; the new \dA
command does that.

Also add tab-completion support for DROP ACCESS METHOD.

Author: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqTzdZdu8J7EF8SXr_R2U5bSUUYNOT3oAWBZdEoggnwhGA@mail.gmail.com

It was previously suggested that "esoteric" operations such as creating
a new access method would require direct manipulation of the system
catalogs, but that example has gone away, and I can't think of a new one
to replace it, so just put in some weasel wording.

Michael Paquier, David Johnston, Tom Lane

Discussion: <CAB7nPqQB8dcFmY1uodmiJOSZdhBFOx-us-uW6rfYrzhpEiBR2g@mail.gmail.com>

Mostly these are just comments but there are a few in documentation
and a handful in code and tests. Hopefully this doesn't cause too much
unnecessary pain for backpatching. I relented from some of the most
common like "thru" for that reason. The rest don't seem numerous
enough to cause problems.

Thanks to Kevin Lyda's tool https://pypi.python.org/pypi/misspellings

Per discussion, this is a more understandable and future-proof way of
exposing the setting to users.  On-disk, we can still store it in words,
so as to not break on-disk compatibility with beta1.

Along the way, clean up the code associated with Bloom reloptions.
Provide explicit macros for default and maximum lengths rather than
having magic numbers buried in multiple places in the code.  Drop
the adjustBloomOptions() code altogether: it was useless in view of
the fact that reloptions.c already performed default-substitution and
range checking for the options.  Rename a couple of macros and types
for more clarity.

Discussion: <23767.1464926580@sss.pgh.pa.us>

While the version number is automatically updated in the example output,
the other details looked a bit dated.

suggested by mike2.schneider@gmail.com

Misplaced "]", evidently a thinko in commit 213335c1.

Léonard Benedetti

Noted by 星合 拓馬 (HOSHIAI Takuma)

Scott Wehrenberg

Takayuki Tsunakawa

Discussion: <0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F578FC3@G01JPEXMBYT05>

Oracle recommends using VARCHAR2 not VARCHAR, allegedly because they might
someday change VARCHAR to be spec-compliant about distinguishing null from
empty string.  (I'm not holding my breath, though.)  Our examples of PL/SQL
code were using VARCHAR, which while not wrong is missing the pedagogical
opportunity to talk about converting Oracle type names to Postgres.  So
switch the examples to use VARCHAR2, and add some text about what to do
with common Oracle type names like VARCHAR2 and NUMBER.  (There is probably
more to be said here, but those are the ones I'm sure about offhand.)
Per suggestion from rapg12@gmail.com.

Discussion: <20160521140046.22591.24672@wrigleys.postgresql.org>

Add missing USING BLOOM in example of contrib/bloom

Nikolay Shaplov

Correct obsolete install instructions, as noted by Daniel Gustafsson.
Clarify the test code's prerequisites.

Discussion: <88E617F2-7721-4C4E-84F4-886A2041C1D0@yesql.se>

David Johnston pointed out that the original text here had been obsoleted
by SQL:2008, which allowed ORDER BY in subqueries.  We could weaken the
text to describe ORDER-BY-in-subqueries as an optional SQL feature that's
possibly unportable; but then the exact same statements would apply to
the alternative it's being compared to (ORDER-BY-in-aggregate-calls).
So really that would be pretty useless; let's just take out the sentence
entirely.  Instead, point out the hazard that any extra processing in the
upper query might cause the subquery output order to be destroyed.

Discussion: <CAKFQuwbAX=iO9QbpN7_jr+BnUWm9FYX8WbEPUvG0p+nZhp6TZg@mail.gmail.com>

Mention it in the Notes section too, per suggestion from David Johnston.

Discussion: <20160520165824.22598.31426@wrigleys.postgresql.org>

Per bug #14152 from Alejandro Martínez.  Back-patch to all supported
branches.

Discussion: <20160520165824.22598.31426@wrigleys.postgresql.org>

Amit Langote

From: Alexander Law <exclusion@gmail.com>