You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For tables where the majority of 'columns' are abstracted under a top-level column, e.g. body or msg, we don't surface the struct accessor as the column name, rendering analysis of these queries unusable.
Ideally, if we had a msg.name, msg.attrs.foo, msg.attrs.bar struct, we'd see the leaf struct names as the column name, i.e. msg.name, msg.attrs.foo, etc. Instead, we currently see msg for all of them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
For tables where the majority of 'columns' are abstracted under a top-level column, e.g.
body
ormsg
, we don't surface the struct accessor as the column name, rendering analysis of these queries unusable.Ideally, if we had a
msg.name, msg.attrs.foo, msg.attrs.bar
struct, we'd see the leaf struct names as the column name, i.e.msg.name
,msg.attrs.foo
, etc. Instead, we currently seemsg
for all of them.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: