It's rumoured that Bruce Momjian once said:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> > I was willing to add a hack to enable default column labels to be
>> > "table.column" --- that seemed like the least obtrusive.
>>
>> Most of the definitional issues still apply: which table name are you
>> going to insert, and under what conditions?
>>
>> If we're revising the protocol, there's no reason to hack up the
>> column label to carry two pieces of info; it'd be cleaner to provide a
>> separate slot in the T message to carry the table name. I just want
>> to see a reasonably complete spec for what the feature is supposed to
>> do, before we buy into it ...
>
> I don't think we can get a complete spec, and hence the _hack_ idea.
> :-)
Well, what would constitute a complete spec? I think I've told the group
what I would like to be able to do, what unanswered questions can I
(hopefully :-) ) answer?
Regards, Dave.