Tom wrote: > I do find it interesting that we now have two reports of somebody > doing "ALTER ROLE SET role = something". In the older thread, > I was skeptical that that had any real use-case, so I wonder if > Charlie has a rationale for having done that.
Unfortunately I haven't heard back from the original developer who set up this role configuration, but if I do then I will share their intentions. In any case the invalid configuration had been removed from every other role except one (certainly by mistake) which lead to me rediscovering this issue. I tested the above patch with the invalid data locally and it avoids the restore error that we ran into previously. Also it requires no intervention to progress with pg_upgrade unlike my initial idea of adding an check, so it is definitely simpler from a user perspective. Thank you for taking a deep look into this and finding a better solution. Best regards, Charlie Hornsby
