Re: BUG #19483: pg_upgrade fails with orphan records in pg_init_priv catalog table

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Hüseyin Demir <huseyin(dot)d3r(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #19483: pg_upgrade fails with orphan records in pg_init_priv catalog table
Date: 2026-06-26 05:18:28
Message-ID: daee495807e183ea6f48c3c0844239753d7f9f6d.camel@cybertec.at
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Wed, 2026-06-24 at 14:19 +0200, Hüseyin Demir wrote:
>
> This v6 patch adds a SAFE_INITPRIVS macro that filters aclitem[]
> arrays server-side by checking that each entry's grantor and grantee
> OID still exists in pg_roles. It is applied in exactly two queries:
>
> 1. getAdditionalACLs() -- the one-time fetch of pg_init_privs at startup
> 2. dumpTable() column ACL prepared statement -- per-table column initprivs

No, that's not good. If you are running the complicated subquery for
every table dumped, you are re-introducing the performance regression
from the v4 patch that Tom justly complained about.

On the other hand, I agree with you that Tom's idea to make this fix
depend on a minor update of the source server that fixes the string
representation of aclitems is not so great. Few people undergo the
hassle of applying the latest minor update to a server they are about
to update (and I am not even speaking about the users who keep running
on the 14.3 they went into production with). Yes, the problem that
the present patch is trying to address is a rare one, and we should
keep the maintenance and performance burden incurred moderate.
But what good is a fix that won't work for a good percentage of the
affected cases, even if they are few?

Here is my latest idea (hold your noses):
Instead of having pg_dump query "FROM pg_catalog.pg_init_privs pip",
how about writing "(FROM (VALUES (...), (...), ...) AS pip", where the
VALUES clause is composed from a query against pg_init_privs run once
at the beginning of pg_dump that excludes the bad entries?
Critizism I forsee is that a) this is ugly and b) very long VALUES
statements might also constitute a performance regression.
However, I have yet to see an extension that produces a hundred
initial privilege entries.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2026-06-26 05:26:31 Re: Set huge_page_size on 32bit system
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2026-06-26 04:57:41 Re: uuidv7 improperly accepts dates before 1970-01-01