From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        Virender Singla <virender.cse@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, Aniket Jha <aniketkumarj@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Major Version Upgrade failure due to orphan roles entries in catalog
In-reply-to: <CA+TgmobMUVTj=5csi-vT=w731H5PBj+0SpCS_AndZEv_eum-jA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <202502131716.7mgkcnrem2hn@alvherre.pgsql> <2939991.1740089974@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+TgmoauoiW4ydDhdrseg+DD4Kwha=+TSZp18BrJeHKx3o1Fdw@mail.gmail.com> <179448.1772033773@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+TgmoYFc1x11Y7AHxn6Jb0mvJ9-aPttmjqezj=YKnHmqVb-Wg@mail.gmail.com> <265501.1772038216@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+TgmobNKFc34nj+w6iX0zWJ1=mfYWqQS91PqsJrm4VD4o1yOw@mail.gmail.com> <296083.1772041154@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+TgmoYJ8Y1G1r9U7pRwnyw=8dmM0xygLguE+bdihkN8GwPuCQ@mail.gmail.com> <301798.1772044229@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+TgmobZRL02-R7k_i3ENYz8CmqCPUZv6cHY51BejqPy7OhFJw@mail.gmail.com> <304751.1772045891@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1103272.1772227345@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1104379.1772227731@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+TgmobMUVTj=5csi-vT=w731H5PBj+0SpCS_AndZEv_eum-jA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:42:30 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <1106525.1772229127.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:52:07 -0500
Message-ID: <1106526.1772229127@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1106526.1772229127%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 4:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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