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" <rykr@bellsouth.net> 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 pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073