Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: >> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Yugo NAGATA <nag...@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