public inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
Clarification to catalog-pg-class 10+ messages / 3 participants [nested] [flat]
* Clarification to catalog-pg-class @ 2009-01-28 19:18 Josh Berkus <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Josh Berkus @ 2009-01-28 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pgsql-docs All, Currently, catalog-pg-class is a bit confusing as to where FKs are tracked in pg_class. Please update the lines for relchecks and reltriggers to read: relchecks int2 Number of check constraints on the table (but not other types of constraints); see pg_constraint catalog reltriggers int2 Number of triggers on the table, including constraint-triggers for foreign keys; see pg_trigger catalog --Josh Berkus ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification to catalog-pg-class @ 2009-02-07 17:05 Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> parent: Josh Berkus <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Bruce Momjian @ 2009-02-07 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > > Currently, catalog-pg-class is a bit confusing as to where FKs are > tracked in pg_class. Please update the lines for relchecks and > reltriggers to read: > > relchecks int2 Number of check constraints on the table (but not > other types of constraints); see pg_constraint catalog Uh, why do we have to say "but" when we clearly say "check constraints"? Do we need to say "CHECK" contraints? > reltriggers int2 Number of triggers on the table, including > constraint-triggers for foreign keys; see pg_trigger catalog pg_class doesn't have that column anymore, it has relhastriggers. -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification to catalog-pg-class @ 2009-02-07 19:04 Josh Berkus <[email protected]> parent: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Josh Berkus @ 2009-02-07 19:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs Bruce, >> Currently, catalog-pg-class is a bit confusing as to where FKs are >> tracked in pg_class. Please update the lines for relchecks and >> reltriggers to read: >> >> relchecks int2 Number of check constraints on the table (but not >> other types of constraints); see pg_constraint catalog > > Uh, why do we have to say "but" when we clearly say "check constraints"? > Do we need to say "CHECK" contraints? Because I've encountered two people on IRC (and a client) who were confused about this, and it confused me briefly when I fielded their questions. Saying "CHECK constraints" would also probably do it, or saying "check constraints (only)" BTW, why do we still have relukeys etc. around? If we haven't used them in 5 versions, shouldn't we purge them? > >> reltriggers int2 Number of triggers on the table, including >> constraint-triggers for foreign keys; see pg_trigger catalog > > pg_class doesn't have that column anymore, it has relhastriggers. Ah. Where are we tracking FKs at this point, then? --Josh ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification to catalog-pg-class @ 2009-02-07 19:29 Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> parent: Josh Berkus <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Bruce Momjian @ 2009-02-07 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > >> Currently, catalog-pg-class is a bit confusing as to where FKs are > >> tracked in pg_class. Please update the lines for relchecks and > >> reltriggers to read: > >> > >> relchecks int2 Number of check constraints on the table (but not > >> other types of constraints); see pg_constraint catalog > > > > Uh, why do we have to say "but" when we clearly say "check constraints"? > > Do we need to say "CHECK" contraints? > > Because I've encountered two people on IRC (and a client) who were > confused about this, and it confused me briefly when I fielded their > questions. Saying "CHECK constraints" would also probably do it, or > saying "check constraints (only)" Uppercase done, with <literal> tag. > BTW, why do we still have relukeys etc. around? If we haven't used them > in 5 versions, shouldn't we purge them? Uh, that one is gone now: Table "pg_catalog.pg_class" Column | Type | Modifiers ----------------+-----------+----------- relname | name | not null relnamespace | oid | not null reltype | oid | not null relowner | oid | not null relam | oid | not null relfilenode | oid | not null reltablespace | oid | not null relpages | integer | not null reltuples | real | not null reltoastrelid | oid | not null reltoastidxid | oid | not null relhasindex | boolean | not null relisshared | boolean | not null relkind | "char" | not null relnatts | smallint | not null relchecks | smallint | not null relhasoids | boolean | not null relhaspkey | boolean | not null relhasrules | boolean | not null relhastriggers | boolean | not null relhassubclass | boolean | not null relfrozenxid | xid | not null relacl | aclitem[] | reloptions | text[] | > > > > >> reltriggers int2 Number of triggers on the table, including > >> constraint-triggers for foreign keys; see pg_trigger catalog > > > > pg_class doesn't have that column anymore, it has relhastriggers. > > Ah. Where are we tracking FKs at this point, then? The count was only used to determine if we should check for triggers, so we now use a boolean; the code checks are the same. -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification to catalog-pg-class @ 2009-02-07 19:37 Josh Berkus <[email protected]> parent: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Josh Berkus @ 2009-02-07 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs > The count was only used to determine if we should check for triggers, so > we now use a boolean; the code checks are the same. Hmmm. In the beta publicity and release notes, we should warn tool designers about this. It's quite possible that some of them (SQLManger, etc.) were using the counts for something. No reason to surprise them. --Josh ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification to catalog-pg-class @ 2009-02-07 20:12 Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> parent: Josh Berkus <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Bruce Momjian @ 2009-02-07 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs Josh Berkus wrote: > > > The count was only used to determine if we should check for triggers, so > > we now use a boolean; the code checks are the same. > > Hmmm. In the beta publicity and release notes, we should warn tool > designers about this. It's quite possible that some of them (SQLManger, > etc.) were using the counts for something. No reason to surprise them. Well, we have never documented system table changes in any previous release, and never got a request to document them either. -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification to catalog-pg-class @ 2009-02-11 09:23 Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> parent: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2009-02-11 09:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs Bruce Momjian wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> Bruce, >> >>>> Currently, catalog-pg-class is a bit confusing as to where FKs are >>>> tracked in pg_class. Please update the lines for relchecks and >>>> reltriggers to read: >>>> >>>> relchecks int2 Number of check constraints on the table (but not >>>> other types of constraints); see pg_constraint catalog >>> Uh, why do we have to say "but" when we clearly say "check constraints"? >>> Do we need to say "CHECK" contraints? >> Because I've encountered two people on IRC (and a client) who were >> confused about this, and it confused me briefly when I fielded their >> questions. Saying "CHECK constraints" would also probably do it, or >> saying "check constraints (only)" > > Uppercase done, with <literal> tag. This is inconsistent with the rest of the documentation. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification to catalog-pg-class @ 2009-02-12 03:17 Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> parent: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Bruce Momjian @ 2009-02-12 03:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>; +Cc: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Bruce, > >> > >>>> Currently, catalog-pg-class is a bit confusing as to where FKs are > >>>> tracked in pg_class. Please update the lines for relchecks and > >>>> reltriggers to read: > >>>> > >>>> relchecks int2 Number of check constraints on the table (but not > >>>> other types of constraints); see pg_constraint catalog > >>> Uh, why do we have to say "but" when we clearly say "check constraints"? > >>> Do we need to say "CHECK" contraints? > >> Because I've encountered two people on IRC (and a client) who were > >> confused about this, and it confused me briefly when I fielded their > >> questions. Saying "CHECK constraints" would also probably do it, or > >> saying "check constraints (only)" > > > > Uppercase done, with <literal> tag. > > This is inconsistent with the rest of the documentation. Should I use <emphasis>? <literal>? -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification to catalog-pg-class @ 2009-02-13 09:13 Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> parent: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2009-02-13 09:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs Bruce Momjian wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> Josh Berkus wrote: >>>> Bruce, >>>> >>>>>> Currently, catalog-pg-class is a bit confusing as to where FKs are >>>>>> tracked in pg_class. Please update the lines for relchecks and >>>>>> reltriggers to read: >>>>>> >>>>>> relchecks int2 Number of check constraints on the table (but not >>>>>> other types of constraints); see pg_constraint catalog >>>>> Uh, why do we have to say "but" when we clearly say "check constraints"? >>>>> Do we need to say "CHECK" contraints? >>>> Because I've encountered two people on IRC (and a client) who were >>>> confused about this, and it confused me briefly when I fielded their >>>> questions. Saying "CHECK constraints" would also probably do it, or >>>> saying "check constraints (only)" >>> Uppercase done, with <literal> tag. >> This is inconsistent with the rest of the documentation. > > Should I use <emphasis>? <literal>? <emphasis> would be appropriate, but I personally don't really buy the premise. If we had to highlight every idiosyncracy in the catalog fields, it would end up looking quite colorful. I suppose a more constructive point would be, where are the other constraint types kept track of? ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification to catalog-pg-class @ 2009-02-13 18:22 Josh Berkus <[email protected]> parent: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Josh Berkus @ 2009-02-13 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>; +Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs Peter, > I suppose a more constructive point would be, where are the other > constraint types kept track of? AFAICT, we're not tracking them in pg_class at all anymore, except that FKs will set relhastrigger=true in the absensce of any other triggers. The confusion on this particular line is caused by the "see pg_constraint catalog", which covers *all* constraints, whereas relconstrains only counts the CHECK constraints and not other types. That's why I think a small emphasis on CHECK would prevent people from being confused again. Of course, at this point, we've spent more time discussing the issue than people have been confused by it, probably. --Josh ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-02-13 18:22 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-01-28 19:18 Clarification to catalog-pg-class Josh Berkus <[email protected]> 2009-02-07 17:05 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2009-02-07 19:04 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]> 2009-02-07 19:29 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2009-02-07 19:37 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]> 2009-02-07 20:12 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2009-02-11 09:23 ` Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> 2009-02-12 03:17 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2009-02-13 09:13 ` Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> 2009-02-13 18:22 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox