Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Looking to fix this, a comment in src/backend/commands/explain.c
indicates that this is intentional:


Anyone know why?

As already noted, it'd usually be clutter in lines that are too long
already.  Also, conditionally adding a schema name isn't very good
because it makes life even more complicated for programs that are
parsing EXPLAIN output (yes, there are some).

We shouldn't do it conditionally. We should do it explicitly. If I have a partitioned table with 30 child partitions, how do I know which table is getting the seqscan?

Joshua D. Drake

I agree with the idea of having an option to get EXPLAIN's output in
an entirely different, more machine-readable format.  Not wedded to
XML, but I fear that a pure relational structure might be too strict ---
there's a lot of variability in the entries already.  XML also could
deal naturally with nesting, whereas we'd have to jump through hoops
to represent the plan tree structure in relational form.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project:
PostgreSQL Replication:

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at


Reply via email to