From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
cc: Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>,
        pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: RLS makes COPY TO process child tables
In-reply-to: <Y+L0jZJkHvgdOZRA@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <3472.1675251957@antos>
 <20230202011525.c7c05900bcf791f868d72a51@sraoss.co.jp>
 <1379089.1675270043@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20230202160031.defd38f35433c7677b48a8ec@sraoss.co.jp>
 <Y+L0jZJkHvgdOZRA@tamriel.snowman.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
	message dated "Tue, 07 Feb 2023 20:02:05 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <825493.1678466042.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:34:02 -0500
Message-ID: <825494.1678466042@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/825494.1678466042%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
>> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
>>>> I think this is a bug because the current behaviour is different from
>>>> the documentation. 

>>> I agree, it shouldn't do that.

> Yeah, I agree based on what the COPY table TO docs say should be
> happening.

Yeah, the documentation is quite clear that child data is not included.

> I'm not sure if this makes good sense to back-patch.

I think we have to.  The alternative is to back-patch some very confusing
documentation changes saying "never mind all that if RLS is on".

			regards, tom lane