My idea on this after chat with Dave was to add a GUC option that puts the schema.table.column name as the default column label, rather than just the column name. (That's so easy, I think even I could do it.) If they over-ride it with AS, or if it is an aggregate or FROM subquery, we just return the default label as we do now --- we could return no label for those cases, but that seems too drastic. I am not overly excited about doing this at the protocol level unless there is major need for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Lane wrote: > "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? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
