Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC53063267E
	for <pgsql-bugs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  3 Sep 2010 14:53:40 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 83510-05 for
	<pgsql-bugs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  3 Sep 2010 17:53:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6691F6323FE
	for <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>; Fri,  3 Sep 2010 14:53:33 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o83HrQq6026285;
	Fri, 3 Sep 2010 13:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
	PostgreSQL Bugs List <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS 
In-reply-to: <1283535870-sup-2648@alvh.no-ip.org> 
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008311337530.2449@localhost.localdomain>
	<2683.1283266019@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1009011557480.2570@localhost.localdomain>
	<1283369900.15386.0.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1009020741380.2656@localhost.localdomain>
	<1283438419.23199.0.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1009021959070.2656@localhost.localdomain>
	<6462.1283454730@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1009031348321.2448@localhost.localdomain>
	<22801.1283525905@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1009031920460.2622@localhost.localdomain>
	<1283535870-sup-2648@alvh.no-ip.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
	message dated "Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:45:02 -0400"
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:53:26 -0400
Message-ID: <26284.1283536406@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201009/29
X-Sequence-Number: 27993

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Fabien COELHO's message of vie sep 03 13:39:19 -0400 2010:
>> I tried to explained that I'm analyzing other people's schemas. I cannot 
>> ask all other people on the planet to rewrite their schemas, I pick them 
>> as they are.

> Maybe you shouldn't be using the information_schema in the first place.

It would probably be reasonable to put something into chapter 34 of the
docs pointing out this limitation.  I'm not sure exactly where though.
Should we invent a "compatibility issues" section in that chapter,
analogous to the ones we have for individual SQL commands?  Are there
other issues worth documenting for the information_schema views?

			regards, tom lane