Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fuj...@gmail.com> writes:
> I think "names of relation" should be "names of relations", so how
> about fixing that as well?
Ah, missed that.
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 6:34 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> BTW, the existing code always schema-qualifies the relation names,
>> on the rather lame grounds that it's producing the string without
>> knowing whether EXPLAIN VERBOSE will be specified. In this code,
>> the verbose flag is available so it would be trivial to make the
>> output conform to EXPLAIN's normal policy. I didn't change that
>> here because there'd be a bunch more test output diffs of no
>> intellectual interest. Should we change it, or leave well enough
>> alone?
> I think it would be better to keep that as-is because otherwise, in
> case of a foreign join or aggregate, EXPLAIN without the VERBOSE
> option won't show any information about foreign tables involved in
> that foreign join or aggregate, which isn't useful for users.
No, I'm just talking about dropping the schema-qualification of table
names when !es->verbose, not removing the Relations: output altogether.
That would be more consistent with the rest of EXPLAIN's output.
regards, tom lane
