DROP OWNED BY fails to clean out pg_init_privs grants

I wondered why buildfarm member copperhead has started to fail
xversion-upgrade-HEAD-HEAD tests.  I soon reproduced the problem here:

pg_restore: creating ACL "regress_pg_dump_schema.TYPE "test_type""
pg_restore: while PROCESSING TOC:
pg_restore: from TOC entry 4355; 0 0 ACL TYPE "test_type" buildfarm
pg_restore: error: could not execute query: ERROR:  role "74603" does not exist
Command was: SELECT pg_catalog.binary_upgrade_set_record_init_privs(true);
GRANT ALL ON TYPE "regress_pg_dump_schema"."test_type" TO "74603";
SELECT pg_catalog.binary_upgrade_set_record_init_privs(false);
REVOKE ALL ON TYPE "regress_pg_dump_schema"."test_type" FROM "74603";

(So now I'm wondering why *only* copperhead has shown this so far.
Are our other cross-version-upgrade testing animals AWOL?)

I believe this is a longstanding problem that was exposed by accident
by commit 936e3fa37.  If you run "make installcheck" in HEAD's
src/test/modules/test_pg_dump, and then poke around in the leftover
contrib_regression database, you can find dangling grants in
pg_init_privs:

contrib_regression=# table pg_init_privs;
 objoid | classoid | objsubid | privtype |                            initprivs 
                           
--------+----------+----------+----------+--------------------------------------
---------------------------
  ...
es}
  43134 |     1259 |        0 | e        | {postgres=rwU/postgres,43125=U/postgr
es}
  43128 |     1259 |        0 | e        | {postgres=arwdDxtm/postgres,43125=r/p
ostgres}
  ...

The fact that the DROP ROLE added by 936e3fa37 succeeded indicates
that these role references weren't captured in pg_shdepend.
I imagine that we also lack code that would allow DROP OWNED BY to
follow up on such entries if they existed, but I've not checked that
for sure.  In any case, there's probably a nontrivial amount of code
to be written to make this work.

Given the lack of field complaints, I suspect that extension scripts
simply don't grant privileges to random roles that aren't the
extension's owner.  So I wonder a little bit if this is even worth
fixing, as opposed to blocking off somehow.  But probably we should
first try to fix it.

I doubt this is something we'll have fixed by Monday, so I will
go add an open item for it.

			regards, tom lane