public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Virender Singla <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Aniket Jha <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Major Version Upgrade failure due to orphan roles entries in catalog
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:52:07 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmobMUVTj=5csi-vT=w731H5PBj+0SpCS_AndZEv_eum-jA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmoauoiW4ydDhdrseg+DD4Kwha=+TSZp18BrJeHKx3o1Fdw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmoYFc1x11Y7AHxn6Jb0mvJ9-aPttmjqezj=YKnHmqVb-Wg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmobNKFc34nj+w6iX0zWJ1=mfYWqQS91PqsJrm4VD4o1yOw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmoYJ8Y1G1r9U7pRwnyw=8dmM0xygLguE+bdihkN8GwPuCQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmobZRL02-R7k_i3ENYz8CmqCPUZv6cHY51BejqPy7OhFJw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmobMUVTj=5csi-vT=w731H5PBj+0SpCS_AndZEv_eum-jA@mail.gmail.com>
Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 4:28 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sigh, this time with it really attached.
> I suggest that having both a variable called dump_grantor and one
> called dump_grantors is a little bit subtle, but other than that this
> looks good on a quick read-through.
Fair ... do you have a suggestion for less confusing names?
I considered naming the new variable "dump_this_grantor", but thought
it was longer without being more helpful ... but maybe you disagree.
> Regarding this point:
>> I'm inclined to
>> think that is an overreaction to the possible unreliability of the
>> data (and from your comment upthread you might agree).
> I think this is my code, so I certainly believed I had the right idea
> at the time, but we could revisit that. One thing to keep in mind is
> that in v15-, regardless of the notional grantor, in effect all grants
> are independent of the existence of any other user. In v16+, they form
> a tree structure, with grants depending on their grantors. So, when
> upgrading from v15- to v16+, we have to end up with a valid tree
> structure, but there's absolutely no reason to think that we already
> have one.
Yeah, that is certainly a hazard we'd have to worry about. As I said,
I'm content to leave it as-is for now.
regards, tom lane
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Major Version Upgrade failure due to orphan roles entries in catalog
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox