Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> It would actually be nice if worked even without that, but I'm not
> sure what would be involved in making that happen.
I've been too busy to look at this in detail, but I imagine the issue is
failure to pass parameters down from the ProcessUtility call to COPY
into the parsing/execution of the sub-SELECT. It might be relatively
straightforward to fix, or then again it might not. The parsing end of
it could quite likely be harder than the execution end. We've
surmounted similar issues in places like EXPLAIN, though.
regards, tom lane
