Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> What I'm imagining instead is that when there's more than one
>> target relation, we produce output like ...
> This looks better.
> In the format above, you have specified both the Remote SQL for scan as
> well as update but in the example you have only mentioned only Remote SQL
> for update; it may be part of "... etc ...". It's better to provide both.
Hm? We don't have scan nodes that read more than one table, so I'm
not following your point.
regards, tom lane