Stephen Frost wrote:
Indeed, if you're not constructing the queries that would make things
somewhat difficult. Then again, parsing the explain output seems like
it's going to be rather difficult itself anyway.
Well, we do that anyway - and just grabbing the base table names isn't
too hard.
Just adding the schema name seems the most sensible and usable option -
not to mention the easiest!
While completely ignoring the current behaviour and likely the reason
it's done the way it is now... explain output was, and still is
primairly, for humans to read.
Humans deserve schemas as well!! :-). As for the likely reason for the
current behaviour, well, I'd rather have precise,
non-potentially-ambiguous info than save a few characters.
Regards, Dave
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
