On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 4:52 PM 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.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
