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