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
