Re: EXPLAIN omits schema?

Stephen Frost wrote:
> Indeed, if you're not constructing the queries that would make things
> somewhat difficult.  Then again, parsing the explain output seems like
> it's going to be rather difficult itself anyway.

Well, we do that anyway - and just grabbing the base table names isn't 
too hard.

>> Just adding the schema name seems the most sensible and usable option - 
>> not to mention the easiest!
> 
> While completely ignoring the current behaviour and likely the reason
> it's done the way it is now...  explain output was, and still is
> primairly, for humans to read.

Humans deserve schemas as well!! :-). As for the likely reason for the 
current behaviour, well, I'd rather have precise, 
non-potentially-ambiguous info than save a few characters.

Regards, Dave