"Reggie Burnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When talking about expressions,views, or any other construct that could
> combine values from multiple tables I think it is reasonable to provide
> null as the table name.  Any one or any process requesting the table
> name has to understand that not all SQL parameters have a base table
> name.  However, in the case where a single table is involved, table and
> schema names should be available.

That seems quite pointless.  You hardly need the backend's help to
determine which column belongs to which table in a single-table query.
AFAICS this facility is only of interest if it does something useful
in not-so-trivial cases.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to