MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <1106526.1772229127@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <1106526.1772229127@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 09:19:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+TgmoZmWg9FfHBLxw7vCJ7pkdWJtW6AMCUvoARTVYqcmeAW=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Major Version Upgrade failure due to orphan roles entries in catalog
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoZmWg9FfHBLxw7vCJ7pkdWJtW6AMCUvoARTVYqcmeAW%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 4:52=E2=80=AFPM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > 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.

Personally, I'd find the extra verbosity helpful, but I don't care
that much if you see it otherwise.

> > 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.

Yeah, sure. I was just mentioning it in case you were planning to
pursue that in a separate thread.

--=20
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com