public inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
pgsql: In pg_dumpall, don't skip role GRANTs with dangling grantor OIDs 4+ messages / 1 participants [nested] [flat]
* pgsql: In pg_dumpall, don't skip role GRANTs with dangling grantor OIDs @ 2026-03-02 16:15 Tom Lane <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Tom Lane @ 2026-03-02 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: [email protected] In pg_dumpall, don't skip role GRANTs with dangling grantor OIDs. In commits 29d75b25b et al, I made pg_dumpall's dumpRoleMembership logic treat a dangling grantor OID the same as dangling role and member OIDs: print a warning and skip emitting the GRANT. This wasn't terribly well thought out; instead, we should handle the case by emitting the GRANT without the GRANTED BY clause. When the source database is pre-v16, such cases are somewhat expected because those versions didn't prevent dropping the grantor role; so don't even print a warning that we did this. (This change therefore restores pg_dumpall's pre-v16 behavior for these cases.) The case is not expected in >= v16, so then we do print a warning, but soldiering on with no GRANTED BY clause still seems like a reasonable strategy. Per complaint from Robert Haas that we were now dropping GRANTs altogether in easily-reachable scenarios. Reported-by: Robert Haas <[email protected]> Author: Tom Lane <[email protected]> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoauoiW4ydDhdrseg+DD4Kwha=+TSZp18BrJeHKx3o1Fdw@mail.gmail.com Backpatch-through: 16 Branch ------ master Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/74b4438a70b9a2ea654501ce061ae7dea1e6a2ea Modified Files -------------- src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dumpall.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* pgsql: In pg_dumpall, don't skip role GRANTs with dangling grantor OIDs @ 2026-03-02 16:15 Tom Lane <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Tom Lane @ 2026-03-02 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: [email protected] In pg_dumpall, don't skip role GRANTs with dangling grantor OIDs. In commits 29d75b25b et al, I made pg_dumpall's dumpRoleMembership logic treat a dangling grantor OID the same as dangling role and member OIDs: print a warning and skip emitting the GRANT. This wasn't terribly well thought out; instead, we should handle the case by emitting the GRANT without the GRANTED BY clause. When the source database is pre-v16, such cases are somewhat expected because those versions didn't prevent dropping the grantor role; so don't even print a warning that we did this. (This change therefore restores pg_dumpall's pre-v16 behavior for these cases.) The case is not expected in >= v16, so then we do print a warning, but soldiering on with no GRANTED BY clause still seems like a reasonable strategy. Per complaint from Robert Haas that we were now dropping GRANTs altogether in easily-reachable scenarios. Reported-by: Robert Haas <[email protected]> Author: Tom Lane <[email protected]> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoauoiW4ydDhdrseg+DD4Kwha=+TSZp18BrJeHKx3o1Fdw@mail.gmail.com Backpatch-through: 16 Branch ------ REL_18_STABLE Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/b09158cc776c48e551113e1a579c1c982d968c2f Modified Files -------------- src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dumpall.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* pgsql: In pg_dumpall, don't skip role GRANTs with dangling grantor OIDs @ 2026-03-02 16:15 Tom Lane <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Tom Lane @ 2026-03-02 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: [email protected] In pg_dumpall, don't skip role GRANTs with dangling grantor OIDs. In commits 29d75b25b et al, I made pg_dumpall's dumpRoleMembership logic treat a dangling grantor OID the same as dangling role and member OIDs: print a warning and skip emitting the GRANT. This wasn't terribly well thought out; instead, we should handle the case by emitting the GRANT without the GRANTED BY clause. When the source database is pre-v16, such cases are somewhat expected because those versions didn't prevent dropping the grantor role; so don't even print a warning that we did this. (This change therefore restores pg_dumpall's pre-v16 behavior for these cases.) The case is not expected in >= v16, so then we do print a warning, but soldiering on with no GRANTED BY clause still seems like a reasonable strategy. Per complaint from Robert Haas that we were now dropping GRANTs altogether in easily-reachable scenarios. Reported-by: Robert Haas <[email protected]> Author: Tom Lane <[email protected]> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoauoiW4ydDhdrseg+DD4Kwha=+TSZp18BrJeHKx3o1Fdw@mail.gmail.com Backpatch-through: 16 Branch ------ REL_17_STABLE Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/1cd783d205443fec47c57a8ac28ac54ba8981e6f Modified Files -------------- src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dumpall.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* pgsql: In pg_dumpall, don't skip role GRANTs with dangling grantor OIDs @ 2026-03-02 16:15 Tom Lane <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Tom Lane @ 2026-03-02 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: [email protected] In pg_dumpall, don't skip role GRANTs with dangling grantor OIDs. In commits 29d75b25b et al, I made pg_dumpall's dumpRoleMembership logic treat a dangling grantor OID the same as dangling role and member OIDs: print a warning and skip emitting the GRANT. This wasn't terribly well thought out; instead, we should handle the case by emitting the GRANT without the GRANTED BY clause. When the source database is pre-v16, such cases are somewhat expected because those versions didn't prevent dropping the grantor role; so don't even print a warning that we did this. (This change therefore restores pg_dumpall's pre-v16 behavior for these cases.) The case is not expected in >= v16, so then we do print a warning, but soldiering on with no GRANTED BY clause still seems like a reasonable strategy. Per complaint from Robert Haas that we were now dropping GRANTs altogether in easily-reachable scenarios. Reported-by: Robert Haas <[email protected]> Author: Tom Lane <[email protected]> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoauoiW4ydDhdrseg+DD4Kwha=+TSZp18BrJeHKx3o1Fdw@mail.gmail.com Backpatch-through: 16 Branch ------ REL_16_STABLE Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/a4649c50a8db58c19fa9a4f2ae12bef52b6c872b Modified Files -------------- src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dumpall.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-03-02 16:15 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2026-03-02 16:15 pgsql: In pg_dumpall, don't skip role GRANTs with dangling grantor OIDs Tom Lane <[email protected]> 2026-03-02 16:15 pgsql: In pg_dumpall, don't skip role GRANTs with dangling grantor OIDs Tom Lane <[email protected]> 2026-03-02 16:15 pgsql: In pg_dumpall, don't skip role GRANTs with dangling grantor OIDs Tom Lane <[email protected]> 2026-03-02 16:15 pgsql: In pg_dumpall, don't skip role GRANTs with dangling grantor OIDs Tom Lane <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox