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>
In-Reply-To: <301798.1772044229@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:47:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+TgmobZRL02-R7k_i3ENYz8CmqCPUZv6cHY51BejqPy7OhFJw@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%2BTgmobZRL02-R7k_i3ENYz8CmqCPUZv6cHY51BejqPy7OhFJw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 1:30=E2=80=AFPM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> missing grantor, source version >=3D 16:
>
> "role grant of R1 to R2 was granted by missing role with OID nnn"
> with detail
> "We'll dump the GRANT without a GRANTED BY clause, but this shouldn't hap=
pen."
>
> missing grantor, source version < 16:
>
> "role grant of R1 to R2 was granted by missing role with OID nnn"
> with detail
> "This state isn't unusual.  We'll dump the GRANT without a GRANTED BY cla=
use."
>
> (We have pg_log_warning_detail back to v16, so it's okay to rely on
> a detail message.)  I feel like this could use more word-smithing,
> but it's covering more or less the right ground IMO.

Yeah, I agree both that it's directionally correct and that more
word-smithing might help. I feel like your main message is better than
your detail, but I'm not sure exactly what would be an improvement.
Sometimes I find it helpful to play with the message level and the
primary message wording as a way of indicating the gravity, e.g.

info: dumping grant of role \"%s\" to role \"%s\" without GRANTED BY,
because role with OID %u no longer exists

vs.

warning: grant of role \"%s\" to \"%s\" has invalid grantor OID %u
detail: this grant will be dumped without GRANTED BY

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