"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