Re: RLS makes COPY TO process child tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RLS makes COPY TO process child tables
Date: 2023-03-10 16:34:02
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Travers 2023-03-10 17:16:40 Re: POC: Lock updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete()
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2023-03-10 15:48:13 Re: pgsql: Use ICU by default at initdb time.