Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-general-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1tmZy5-007na4-67
	for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:02:01 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-general-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1tmZy4-003j1l-0D
	for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:02:00 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1tmZy3-003j1C-LH
	for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:01:59 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.96)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1tmZy1-000YHD-0D
	for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org;
	Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:01:59 +0000
Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 51OF1pQ31337155;
	Mon, 24 Feb 2025 10:01:51 -0500
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: #XX000: ERROR: tuple concurrently updated
In-reply-to: <CAFCRh-957e6i9NWXo9iNCS10AGKjSRqZ_CoCP+-67s82Rd8Bjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFCRh-8g-41VhdbbbnP+eezFq1UJ6T2JdQ=iS60hcaqGoJ=x9w@mail.gmail.com> <2701260.1740065273@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAFCRh-957e6i9NWXo9iNCS10AGKjSRqZ_CoCP+-67s82Rd8Bjw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 24 Feb 2025 10:21:50 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1337153.1740409311.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 10:01:51 -0500
Message-ID: <1337154.1740409311@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-general.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-general-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-general>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1337154.1740409311%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com> writes:
> But during those "restore" transactions, I must also make role-to-role
> grants,
> which AFAIK involve adding rows to pg_auth_members. So they are not subject
> to the same "no support for concurrent updates in the catalog-manipulation"
> you mentioned, as schema-to-role grants are, right? Because that's an
> insert,
> not an update? Just want to make sure, as I'm thinking how to change our
> code.

Yeah, I think "GRANT role" should be relatively immune to that
problem, as long as you're making distinct grants (not same
grantor/grantee/granted roles).  Wouldn't hurt to test.

			regards, tom lane