We have been trying to create many roles and users in one of the databases. At one point I came across this issue that I am finding it hard to reproduce.

It is reproducible within the database but when I create a new database and try the same it isn't happening :(

ALTER TABLE public.table_name OWNER TO role_name;

Usually, after we run this query. The table_name will be owned by the role_name role/user.

After running the above query if we run the below query:

select grantee, table_catalog, privilege_type, table_schema, table_name 
from information_schema.table_privileges 
where table_name = 'table_name' 
order by grantee, table_schema, table_name

We will get the below results:

 role_name   | database_name   | INSERT       | public   | table_name
 role_name   | database_name   | DELETE       | public   | table_name
 role_name   | database_name   | SELECT       | public   | table_name
 role_name   | database_name   | UPDATE       | public   | table_name
 role_name   | database_name   | TRUNCATE     | public   | table_name
 role_name   | database_name   | REFERENCES   | public   | table_name
 role_name   | database_name   | TRIGGER      | public   | table_name

However, in a particularly fucked up database (I am sorry about the language, but god knows what I have been through and I am sure he would excuse me this time :P ) after I grant ownership the new role is becoming the owner but it does not have SELECT, INSERT or any privilege for that matter.

So, my question is:

Are there any scenario where when we assign ownership of a table to a role, the role can be the owner and still not have select, insert, update, delete privilege?

If yes, when and why?