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
