get_partition_parent felt that it could simply Assert that systable_getnext
found a tuple. This is unlike any other caller of that function, and it's
unsafe IMO --- in fact, the reason I noticed it was that the Assert failed.
(OK, I was working with known-inconsistent catalog contents, but I wasn't
expecting the DB to fall over quite that violently. The behavior in a
non-assert-enabled build wouldn't be very nice, either.) Fix it to do what
other callers do, namely an actual runtime-test-and-elog.
Also, standardize the wording of elog messages that are complaining about
unexpected failure of systable_getnext. 90% of them say "could not find
tuple for <object>", so make the remainder do likewise. Many of the
holdouts were using the phrasing "cache lookup failed", which is outright
misleading since no catcache search is involved.
The main change here is to call security_compute_create_name_raw()
rather than security_compute_create_raw(). This ups the minimum
requirement for libselinux from 2.0.99 to 2.1.10, but it looks
like most distributions will have picked that up before 9.3 is out.
KaiGai Kohei
Bruce Momjian