Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> ... It makes me wonder if COPY shouldn't have been implemented using
> the Executor instead, but that's, again, a completely separate topic.
> It wasn't, but it wants to play like it operates in the same kind of way
> as INSERT, so it needs to pick up the slack.
FWIW, we've shifted COPY more towards using executor support over the
years. I'm pretty sure that it didn't originally use the executor's
index-entry-insertion infrastructure, for instance.
Building an RT entry seems like a perfectly sane thing to do in order
to make it use the executor's permissions infrastructure.
regards, tom lane
