Re: EXPLAIN omits schema?

Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> Looking to fix this, a comment in src/backend/commands/explain.c
>> indicates that this is intentional:
>
> Quite.
>
>> 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
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/